Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium poll

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited August 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium poll

The usual caveats apply, this is but one poll, we need to see other polling to see if this UKIP surge is occurring or not. My own thought is that, this is more a return to the status quo for Opinium with regards to UKIP, their last poll, a fortnight ago, had UKIP down to their lowest point since February 2013, and that didn’t feel right.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Are UKIP supporters less likely to take foreign holidays in August?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.

    Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    edited August 2014
    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008

    UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.

    Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.

    IMHO. FWIW!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972
    @TSE - I make it 1636 polls this parliament from a combination of the wiki & Wells' list.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).

    Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    King Cole, don't OD on acronyms.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008

    King Cole, don't OD on acronyms.

    LOL!
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2014

    This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.

    Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.

    ISIS being beastly – illegal immigrants at Tilbury Docks – school holidays & the Bojo effect.

    I suspect these and more will all be used this evening to explain the UKiP surge. ; )
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @TSE @isam @MikeK

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

    All very scholarly, even with the wikipedia link, but I reckon that @TSE as just quoting West Wing (Series 1, Episode 2)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing_(season_1)#Episodes

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,333
    edited August 2014

    This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.

    Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.

    Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).

    IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.

    (Edit: did I miss the nuances?)
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).

    Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.

    Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    @TSE - I make it 1636 polls this parliament from a combination of the wiki & Wells' list.

    Bah.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    FPT @TSE @isam @MikeK

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."

    All very scholarly, even with the wikipedia link, but I reckon that @TSE as just quoting West Wing (Series 1, Episode 2)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing_(season_1)#Episodes

    I did Latin long before I watched the West Wing.

    My favourite bit of Latin, apart from Catullus 16, is Semper ubi, sub ubi
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Nabavi, but Warsi's resignation could've been much worse for the Government. ISIS and Ukraine, to a lesser extent, relegated it almost to insignificance. That's my point.

    If ISIS had been beaten back rather than making startling gains and Ukraine had gone all peaceful Gaza might yet be the biggest foreign story, and broadcasters would be wibbling on about Warsi.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.

    Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.

    IMHO. FWIW!
    According to the electoral calculus model UKIP have to be just 4 points behind the tories or 14 points ahead of the LD to gain a single seat and that one in scotland.
    So the model doesn't work and they warn why it might not work:

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

    "This analysis has been conducted with the best available models and using national opinion poll support levels. It is the current best estimate of possible general election outcomes, but the growth of UKIP is a new phenomenon and there are a number of assumptions and approximations involved in the calculations. These sources of possible error include:

    Assumption of uniform support The calculations assume that UKIP support is fairly evenly distributed, or at least it is evenly created from defecting Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters. The calculations have not used local election results to estimate possible locations of heavy UKIP support. If UKIP support is concentrated, rather than being evenly spread, then they will get more MPs despite lower levels of popular support.
    Assumption of homogeneous defectors The transition model assumes that defecting voters behave identically, no matter which party they previously supported. Using the May 2013 polls, around 20% of Conservative voters and about half of Liberal Democrats are expected to defect. These defectors are assumed to break evenly between Labour and UKIP. In reality we might expect that the ex-Conservatives would be more attracted to UKIP, and the ex-LibDems to Labour. This might affect the accuracy of the calculations, especially in strong Conservative areas.
    Absence of strong candidates The numerical models have no data on any strong UKIP candidate who might stand at the next general election. If a strong candidate with good local backing emerges, then UKIP could win that seat against the numerical odds. The election of Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion, Green) in 2010 is a useful example of this possibility."
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    Mr. Nabavi, it has, however, seriously drawn the sting from the resignation of the minister for being an Asian woman. Gaza is now perhaps only the third most serious foreign story (definitely below IS, and perhaps Ukraine. If ebola gets worse it'll be the fourth).

    Wonder how the Turks feel about the Kurds getting tooled up. The alternative might be having a country of insane violence all along the southern Turkish border.

    Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved.
    I think British citizens going to fight for Islam will make people vote for parties who are prepared to criticise multiculturalism
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,489
    edited August 2014
    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    If only foreign leaders would shut up regarding the scottish ref.
    Don't they realise that the more they critizise YES the more people will want to vote YES?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    Speedy said:

    UKIP on 21 looks like the best result for the purples since John Comnenus was on the throne.

    Still ZILCH seats on UNS though. Mind, I don't expect UNS to be what happens. One or two Kipper seats and a better result for LDs and Nats is more likely.

    IMHO. FWIW!
    According to the electoral calculus model UKIP have to be just 4 points behind the tories or 14 points ahead of the LD to gain a single seat and that one in scotland.
    So the model doesn't work and they warn why it might not work:

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

    "This analysis has been conducted with the best available models and using national opinion poll support levels. It is the current best estimate of possible general election outcomes, but the growth of UKIP is a new phenomenon and there are a number of assumptions and approximations involved in the calculations. These sources of possible error include:

    Assumption of uniform support The calculations assume that UKIP support is fairly evenly distributed, or at least it is evenly created from defecting Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters. The calculations have not used local election results to estimate possible locations of heavy UKIP support. If UKIP support is concentrated, rather than being evenly spread, then they will get more MPs despite lower levels of popular support.
    Assumption of homogeneous defectors The transition model assumes that defecting voters behave identically, no matter which party they previously supported. Using the May 2013 polls, around 20% of Conservative voters and about half of Liberal Democrats are expected to defect. These defectors are assumed to break evenly between Labour and UKIP. In reality we might expect that the ex-Conservatives would be more attracted to UKIP, and the ex-LibDems to Labour. This might affect the accuracy of the calculations, especially in strong Conservative areas.
    Absence of strong candidates The numerical models have no data on any strong UKIP candidate who might stand at the next general election. If a strong candidate with good local backing emerges, then UKIP could win that seat against the numerical odds. The election of Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion, Green) in 2010 is a useful example of this possibility."
    Good stuff Speedster

    Who'd have thought it eh?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Flightpath, have to wait and see how the latest poll compares to the electoral result.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    They'd probably win a decent number of seats on 21%, but this is another way of saying that a national poll now showing them at 21% nationally doesn't really translate into 21% in a FPTP election, because the people telling Opinium they'll vote for them will get squeezed everywhere except the UKIP targets.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!

    Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.

    £5000 at EVS?

    Bet void if they don't get 17%
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!

    Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.

    £5000 at EVS?

    Bet void if they don't get 17%
    I'm willing to bet 500 million BitCamerons!
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Mr. Flightpath, have to wait and see how the latest poll compares to the electoral result.

    Obviously - but the election is months away - we will have to see how the polls then compare with the result. This latest poll says that all the other polls are pants - although only after standing its own previous poll on its head.
    If all these polls show anything its that the electorate have the attention span of a goldfish - bumping from one contrary opinion to the next. I appreciate I am apparently delivering malcomg levels of contempt for fellow voters here but really - what is the level of attention and thought processes which commit a voter to give an answer to a pollster. Voters have lives to lead. Are people really interested?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    edited August 2014
    Mr. Flightpath, the joy of democracy is that half of the voters have below average intelligence :p

    Edited extra bit: mind you, it was a lot of intellectually self-confident cretins who decided to embark on the eurozone madness. Judgement and intelligence don't always go hand-in-hand.
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!

    Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.

    £5000 at EVS?

    Bet void if they don't get 17%
    That national share of the vote, has a poor relationship with the number of seats won.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    edited August 2014
    Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+

    Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..

    All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!

    First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now

    Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited August 2014
    FPT
    Rexel56 said:

    Increasingly of the view that the GE will depend on Labour's success in motivating vote to get out and do so. This will be part targeted policies, part Tory demonisation and part ground operation.

    Can anyone point me to sources that describe how the party at constituency level plans and executes their GOTV campaign, what techniques are used to get someone to vote by post or in person and whether the plan flexes on the day based on what's happening...

    Any help appreciated, cynical comments on voting fraud not required!

    No sources. I can tell you how it works (simplified) and you can believe it or not.

    The problem with Labour voters is 1) they are a bit slack about voting especially at mid-term type elections and 2) when they are annoyed at Labour they'll still say they support them but stay at home and not vote.

    old way:
    step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour
    step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper
    step 3) election day look at bit of paper, knock up and ask if voted yet

    net result: one day of nagging to offset the slackness

    new improved postal voting way:
    step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour
    step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper *and* try and persuade them to get a postal vote
    step 3) come election time go out knocking up those with postal votes *after the postal votes have been sent out* and ask if they've sent it him yet, want help filling them in, want someone to post it for them etc. Keep doing it till election day.

    net result: weeks of nagging to offset the slackness

    If it was just that I wouldn't be bothered personally but it also partially counters the silent rebellion effect.

    (edit: so postal votes are more important the more unpopular Labour are with their voters.)

    This is separate both from the fraud aspect - important but overplayed imo - and the bit that looks like fraud but is actually just a side effect of how some ethnic groups self-organize which leads to 100% turnout from those groups.

    All tolled a pretty big deal with the first bit being more important overall and the second bit more important in some areas.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Whats that got to do with UKIP getting no seats?!

    Ill bet as much as you like that if UKIP score, I will be generous, 17% they will win at least one seat.

    £5000 at EVS?

    Bet void if they don't get 17%
    That national share of the vote, has a poor relationship with the number of seats won.
    Hahaha desperado!
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2014
    Since many are complaining about UKIP seats I give you (after the excuses) a separate effort using constituency polls.
    You can make seat projections with those opinion polls in 62 constituencies though it is doubtful that those 62 seats are a representantive sample.
    Using a probability model in each seat I get LAB 380, CON 182, LD 34, UKIP 24, SNP 10, PC 2
    The seat model really depends on those 62 seats being representative of the whole country (which I don't think they exactly are).

    Or if you want percentages of vote (which I believe is more accurate) you get the average change of the vote from each constituency and apply it to the 2010 results, so you get LAB 34, CON 28, UKIP 18, LD 9, Greens 3.
    A 6% swing from CON to LAB.

    I prefer the vote share because it is more accurate and in line with national opinion polls.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008
    As someone said on a previous, albeit recent, thread, the Alliance polled 23% in 1983 and won no more seats. In fact they lost seats. And, as the previous poster pointed out they had the benefit of incumbency in several seats.

    As someone who was involved at a ,coal level we confidently expected much more and as Election night wore on became more and more despondent. I can see the same happening to Kippers.

    Under FPTP there's nothing for second place!
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Is it really that impossible to come up with a model of UKIP votes distribution based on , say, the EURO 2014 vote spread.
  • Options
    What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    If someone rang the BBC off the record then surely an offence has been committed which the BBC are complicit in? Are they investigating it? I think we can guess the answer.
    Given that SYP are under criticism for Hillborough then I for one can imagine they would relish complaints against celebreties as a way to shake off the flak. The police felt confident enough to fit up a cabinet minister so I don't think anyone is safe and if the police here are at fault then it is in their self interest to keep the pot boiling and spread as much dirt as possible.

    Amazingly there was a time once when I trusted the police. Then they arrested Damien Green and raided his office in Parliament. Then we read the investigated Stephen Lawrence's family then we read about Hillsborough.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.

    Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.

    In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    isam said:

    Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+

    Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..

    All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!

    First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now

    Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg


    I saw that one. Had to mute it.

    The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.

  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    RN.

    "Things happening in far-off countries don't affect UK elections, unless the UK is directly and heavily involved."

    Far to preoccupied with hunting for paedos.
  • Options

    What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?

    0.9%
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited August 2014

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.
    A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.

    Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.

    In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.
    To be fair Mr L, IF there is some substance in the allegations and someone else with a genuine complaint comes forward as a result of the publicity......

    Tonight the view in the public house where I drink was that someone would come forward, with the expectation that coin o f the realm would be forthcoming.
  • Options

    What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?

    0.9%
    Ta!

    So 0.9% = 1 seat

    21% / 0.9 x 1 = 23 seats :)
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    surbiton said:

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
    Where do you draw that conclusion.
    1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
    2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?

    Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    surbiton said:

    Is it really that impossible to come up with a model of UKIP votes distribution based on , say, the EURO 2014 vote spread.

    It is possible, it wont be 100% accurate however it will be more accurate than the 2010 UKIP results.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MrJones said:

    isam said:

    Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+

    Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..

    All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!

    First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now

    Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg


    I saw that one. Had to mute it.

    The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.

    I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.
    A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.
    I think that theory fits in with Mr. Cole's possibility number 4. Someone leaked the raid. There will be a very small pool of suspects (probably no more than half a dozen) and almost all of them will be at quite a senior level. Finding out who should not be that difficult. However, it would seem that the Filth don't even want to try. South Yorkshire Police seem to prefer the idea that the BBC got the initial information from a fairy.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    surbiton said:

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
    Where do you draw that conclusion.
    1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
    2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?

    Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
    Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.



  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    edited August 2014
    Speedy said:

    MrJones said:

    isam said:

    Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+

    Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..

    All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!

    First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now

    Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg


    I saw that one. Had to mute it.

    The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.

    I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".
    Stick with it. Absolutely amazing.

    They just both sound like evil villains who want to change someone else's country to the way they would like it to be, and assume the people who live there will suffer it. I can really empathise with Islamists nutters having watched that
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited August 2014
    TOPPING said:

    This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.

    Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.

    Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).

    IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.

    (Edit: did I miss the nuances?)
    Yes, I think you did.

    ISIS persecuting Christians (and other religious minorities)=Cameron says (and does) sweet FA=Cameron doesn't defend Christians no matter how innocent they are=Cameron wouldn't defend Christians in UK no matter how badly treated they are=Vote UKIP!

    Incidentally, a letter about Iraq from the Archbishop was read out at mass last Sunday and there was a second collection for Iraq as well.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.

    Both forces seem to be denying something that is self evidently true and not even attempting to investigate a corrupt person in their ranks, indeed not even admitting the possibility that such a person exists. I do hope the Home Affairs Select Committee roasts the Chief Constables. Of course the respective Police and Crime Commissioners should already be doing that if they were doing their jobs, but it would seem they are not.

    In the East End of London the police were known as the Filth. I always thought it was unfair, but over the years I have changed my mind.
    To be fair Mr L, IF there is some substance in the allegations and someone else with a genuine complaint comes forward as a result of the publicity......

    Tonight the view in the public house where I drink was that someone would come forward, with the expectation that coin o f the realm would be forthcoming.
    I agree with the second paragraph, Mr. Cole, the first one is disturbing.

    South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".
  • Options
    In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
    Where do you draw that conclusion.
    1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
    2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?

    Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
    Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.

    Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Speedy said:

    MrJones said:

    isam said:

    Sad, sad, sad man that I am, I am watching Thursday nights Newsnight on Sky+

    Dubyas speech to Iraqi's assuring them its all going to be ok, now he has gotten rid of Saddam, and the assurances US forces will leave once they've sorted it all out..

    All I can picture is some kind of ISIS nutter coming on BBC1 telling me the UK will be ok now they have liberated it.. no wonder they hate us so!

    First time I have seen it.. how utterly patronising...uh-oh Blairs on now

    Here it is.. listen to the bullshit spew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xGWaDb2Yg


    I saw that one. Had to mute it.

    The stand-in woman was less annoying than the usual presenters though.

    I shut it off after the first 3 seconds when George W . said "this is G.W.B. president of the USA".
    Either that or smash the telly.
  • Options

    In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?

    It is explained here

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
  • Options
    David Cameron Bishop bashing story

    Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy

    Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,798

    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
    Where do you draw that conclusion.
    1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
    2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?

    Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
    Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.

    Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.
    Indeed. It will be interesting to see the reaction toward UKIP, as anticipated, markedly increase their GE share but pick up no seats at all, vs if they markedly increase their GE share and pick up a couple of seats. What would the impact of continuing to be totally cut off from Westminster have on their current impact without any such Westminster representation, if any?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?

    It is explained here

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
    Good evening. Opinium doesn't prompt for UKIP.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044



    South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".

    Police 'trawling' for witnesses has a number of practical and moral difficulties: see
    http://www.newstatesman.com/node/135233

    There is a discussion to be had about suspect anonymity, but on the other hand, would Harris, Hall and Clifford have been jailed for their crimes without the publicity persuading other victims to come forward?

    I'm really not sure where the scales should balance on this one. For reasons regular readers would know, I'm veering towards the victims rather than the suspects. It's a difficult one, though, especially when the press and media get involved.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    surbiton said:

    So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?

    Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
    Where do you draw that conclusion.
    1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP.
    2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?

    Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
    Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.

    Spot on, Mr. Isam. UKIP is getting things to happen even without any MPs, primarily, I think, because the major parties are starting to realise they cannot indefinitely ignore a big chunk of the electorate. The more voters UKIP gathers the more this effect will grow. The Parliamentary seats will probably come in time but the effects are already starting to be felt.
    Indeed. It will be interesting to see the reaction toward UKIP, as anticipated, markedly increase their GE share but pick up no seats at all, vs if they markedly increase their GE share and pick up a couple of seats. What would the impact of continuing to be totally cut off from Westminster have on their current impact without any such Westminster representation, if any?
    Cameron sacked Gove because of an opinion poll from trade union members!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151

    David Cameron Bishop bashing story

    Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy

    Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy

    Why is David Cameron expected to have developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? He's the Prime Minister of Britain, which is nowhere near either Iraq or Nigeria.

    Occasionally there are violent Islamic extremists in Britain and it would be his job to deal with them, but they generally tackle themselves by things like setting fire to their own van and crashing it into a concrete bollard outside an airport then getting the shit kicked out of them by off-duty baggage handlers.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Will England turn Purple?

    If Britain voted the same way in the General Election as they did in the Euro's here is how Parliament would look. pic.twitter.com/3QumjgICss"

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,333
    Ninoinoz said:

    TOPPING said:

    This tells you more about Opinium than UKIP.

    Mind you, I did enjoy the comments on the previous thread claiming that ISIS being beastly in Iraq would boost UKIP's vote share.

    Didn't see those comments re. IS & UKIP but I can see the logic (don't want anyone to rehearse the whole thing again).

    IS = Islamic State = Islamic = Islamist campaigning in the UK eg. against "our boys" = backlash = UKIP gaining.

    (Edit: did I miss the nuances?)
    Yes, I think you did.

    ISIS persecuting Christians (and other religious minorities)=Cameron says (and does) sweet FA=Cameron doesn't defend Christians no matter how innocent they are=Cameron wouldn't defend Christians in UK no matter how badly treated they are=Vote UKIP!

    Incidentally, a letter about Iraq from the Archbishop was read out at mass last Sunday and there was a second collection for Iraq as well.
    so you are agreeing with me.

    Incidentally, what message do you suppose it sends (and to whom) when the West only intervenes when Christians are being persecuted after Sunnis have had to suffer years of discrimination?

    Of course we are far from the topic (IS being beastly benefits UKIP) but as I said, IS in Iraq being beastly to Christians does, I think, benefit UKIP.

    Or were you making a different (yet more nuanced) point altogether?
  • Options

    David Cameron Bishop bashing story

    Church launches bitter attack on PM's 'incoherent' Middle East policy

    Bishop of Leeds slams failure over Islamist extremism in scathing letter backed by the archbishop of Canterbury

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/church-of-england-attack-david-cameron-middle-east-policy

    Why is David Cameron expected to have developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? He's the Prime Minister of Britain, which is nowhere near either Iraq or Nigeria.

    Occasionally there are violent Islamic extremists in Britain and it would be his job to deal with them, but they generally tackle themselves by things like setting fire to their own van and crashing it into a concrete bollard outside an airport then getting the shit kicked out of them by off-duty baggage handlers.
    Time for disestablishment.
  • Options

    In calculating its polling averages, does UKPR allocate the same weighting to Opinium's findings as it does, for example, in the case of ICM?

    It is explained here

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
    Many thanks.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,489
    edited August 2014
    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
    Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098



    South Yorks police seem to have invented a new method of Criminal Investigation. In effect take a celebrities name and publicly ask for allegations about them. I am not sure how that fits in with the way we are accustomed to be policed, and Robert Peel is probably spinning in his grave. If it catches on of course it need not be confined to celebrities. Suppose, to pull a name out the hat, Leicester Police are short of a few convictions to meet their targets what would there be to stop them advertising in the Leicester Echo, "We are investigating Dr. Smith, any one who wants to make an allegation against him, no matter long ago the offence took place, should contact us".

    Police 'trawling' for witnesses has a number of practical and moral difficulties: see
    http://www.newstatesman.com/node/135233

    There is a discussion to be had about suspect anonymity, but on the other hand, would Harris, Hall and Clifford have been jailed for their crimes without the publicity persuading other victims to come forward?

    I'm really not sure where the scales should balance on this one. For reasons regular readers would know, I'm veering towards the victims rather than the suspects. It's a difficult one, though, especially when the press and media get involved.
    Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.

    Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
    Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
    Diane and Mike K should hook up!

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,329
    edited August 2014
    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
    Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
    Diane and Mike K should hook up!

    Or maybe Mike K is Diane? :)
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Below is another reason that UKIP is gaining recruits. The Lab/Lib/Con's have brought this country to a near nervous breakdown.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100283280/travelodge-removes-the-bibles-from-its-rooms-on-grounds-of-diversity-were-satanists-complaining/
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
    Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
    Yes, well, people say silly things at times. Come the day I realistically think UKIP will do well to hit 12% because some of their Conservative converts will panic and go back in an attempt to keep Miliband out. In terms of seats it depends where those panic stricken voters are. If they are down here in the Conservative heartlands it won't matter a toss. If they are in the "UKIP winnable" seats then that will hurt (and probably let Miliband in).
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2014

    Hmm. Pots and kettles spring to mind.

    South Yorkshire Police have complained to the BBC, after the BBC learned of details about a search:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28823699

    Gosh.

    Mr D, the Police complained that the BBC were slow to acknowledge they (the Police) were not the source of the leak.

    There are 4 possibilities
    1. The BBC has helicopters flying over every Police HQ to see where columns of unmarked cars are going.
    2. Someone in SYP rang the BBC "off the record".
    3. The BBC has hacked into SYP mobile phones.
    4. Invisible giant green lizards in SYP are in telepathic communications with relations in the BBC.
    5. Thames Valley Police were the source of the leak.
    What is blatantly obvious is that someone in West Yorkshire or Thames Valley leaked the raid, probably, if past history is anything to go by, for money. That both forces seem to be denying this is what happened just discredits them further, and, crumbs, its not as if South Yorks had a lot of credibility to start with.
    A deliberate leak isn't the only possibility here, is it? (I'm talking about the original leak, not the follow-up where they say they promised the BBC priority information in return for keeping a lid on it for a while, in the manner of President Beck in Deep Impact.) Don't get me wrong, it's completely plausible and police everywhere lie all the time, but it's also possible that a policeman told his wife and she told her hairdresser and somebody in the salon told the BBC or whatever.
    I think that theory fits in with Mr. Cole's possibility number 4. Someone leaked the raid. There will be a very small pool of suspects (probably no more than half a dozen) and almost all of them will be at quite a senior level. Finding out who should not be that difficult. However, it would seem that the Filth don't even want to try. South Yorkshire Police seem to prefer the idea that the BBC got the initial information from a fairy.
    I thought it was a joint TV venture between the BBC and South Yorkshire constabulary

    ‘Celebrity Police Search.’ – coming to your screens this Autumn…
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044


    Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.

    Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).

    Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).

    It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.

    At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...

    Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.

    It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.

    On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.

    Mr. Edmund,

    Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
  • Options

    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.

    Mr. Edmund,

    Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
    Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151

    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.

    Mr. Edmund,

    Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
    I'm not an expert in theology but I'm pretty sure their invisible superhero is supposed to have jurisdiction across national boundaries. Either way they should stop bitching about what the Prime Minister of BRITAIN isn't doing about it.
  • Options
    Neil said:

    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    I love it when a big UKIP score shows zero seats!

    If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one

    Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.

    FPTP screws smaller parties.
    Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?

    Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
    Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
    Diane and Mike K should hook up!

    So long as they don't breed.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151

    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.

    Mr. Edmund,

    Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
    Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!
    Good point, they even have a bunch of international franchises and things. Get yourself over to Nigeria, Bishop of Leeds, and don't come back until you've turned them all into Christians.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @JossiasJessop

    In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.

    Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.

    The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933


    Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.

    Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).

    Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).

    It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.

    At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...

    Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.

    It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.

    On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.
    It seems to me in these recent sex offence cases, the more pious and do goody the suspects image, the more guilty they are, and vice versa
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    isam said:


    Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.

    Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).

    Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).

    It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.

    At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...

    Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.

    It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.

    On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.
    It seems to me in these recent sex offence cases, the more pious and do goody the suspects image, the more guilty they are, and vice versa
    I'm not sure what your evidence base is for the assertion unless you're making assumptions about a recent event.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Speaking of which, why hasn't the Church of England developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? They're supposed to be the ones communicating with a benevolent, omnipotent being every day. If neither the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost can work out what to do about this I don't see why they expect David Cameron to have all the answers.

    Mr. Edmund,

    Maybe the name Church of ENGLAND should give you a clue as to why they have not formed a plan to combat Islamic Extremism in parts foreign. Mind you the CofE is so limp-wristed and so uncertain of what it believes and too terrified of actually saying anything that might be unpopular that it has, these days, all the moral authority of a haddock.
    Avast, Mr Llama! The Anglican Communion has many fans in Africa (and other sunnier climes) too!
    Indeed it does, Cap'n Doc, at least for the moment, but that is the Anglican Communion. Mr. Tokyo was talking about the CofE which is a related but different thing altogether. I expect Mr Tokyo knew that but perhaps he was trying to make a, silly, point.

    Else
  • Options

    @JossiasJessop

    In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.

    Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.

    The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?

    In this post you're mixing South Yorks and West Yorks
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited August 2014

    @JossiasJessop

    In those exact terms, no. But as near as as makes no difference.

    Just looking at the story on the Telegraph Web Site, South Yorks seem to be digging themselves into an even bigger hole. They are showing all the signs of a public body that has been caught out doing something stupid/illegal and are flailing around like mad trying to get the problem to stop. You would think that West Yorks, of all forces, would have learned the lesson that when you have done something wrong do not try and lie (sorry spin) your way out of it.

    The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire has a pay and pension package worth over £200,000 p.a.. One has to ask, why?

    In this post you're mixing South Yorks and West Yorks
    Oops, apologies all, and thanks Mr Putney for pointing out a silly error. Should be South Yorkshire Police throughout.
  • Options
    Looks like the ICM poll is good for Yes

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvMInp4CMAAh56G.jpg
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick

    Scotland on Sunday front page - "Poll: Yes vote advances despite currency fears" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/YCnsBNcsDE

  • Options
    We all make mistakes, like that berk of a senior police officer announcing to camera the raid on a property in Berkshire, which he pronounced as "Burkshire".
    Didn't people like him ever go to school?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's looking increasingly likely UKIP will poll at least 10% next year.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    What % vote did the Greens get in GE2010?

    0.9%
    Ta!

    So 0.9% = 1 seat

    21% / 0.9 x 1 = 23 seats :)
    The Greens only contested 335 seats in 2010. UKIP will be contesting all of them in 2015.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    If there is anyone around who enjoys a good laugh then I recommend them to read Cameron's latest article in the the Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11039214/PM-Our-generational-struggle-against-a-poisonous-ideology.html

    I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further. Then there is the great section when he says the police are going to act against people promoting Islamist views in the UK. Its comedy gold stuff.
This discussion has been closed.