Lord Ashcroft on his polls in Clacton (accurate) and Heywood (miles out) - his conclusion 'people knew what they were going to do with Carswell, but formed their opinion over the campaign in Heywood:
His margin of error at Heywood & M was 17% and in both polls he overstated Labour's share of the vote. This has been the constant retort of Conservative Central Office and now they have been proved right.
Ashcroft's polls are useless on the very thing that matters most in the majority of his surveys: Labour's share of the vote.
I'm personally glad we can consign him to the waste bin and stick to proper pollsters. The man has been punching above his weight for far too long. He's a political has-been.
Actually am I not right in thinking that Ashcroft's pollster is Populus ? The same pollster as David Cameron. The only difference being in Ashcroft's polls he prompts for UKIP along with the established parties?
Lord Ashcroft on his polls in Clacton (accurate) and Heywood (miles out) - his conclusion 'people knew what they were going to do with Carswell, but formed their opinion over the campaign in Heywood:
His margin of error at Heywood & M was 17% and in both polls he overstated Labour's share of the vote. This has been the constant retort of Conservative Central Office and now they have been proved right.
Ashcroft's polls are useless on the very thing that matters most in the majority of his surveys: Labour's share of the vote.
I'm personally glad we can consign him to the waste bin and stick to proper pollsters. The man has been punching above his weight for far too long. He's a political has-been.
Survation's poll for H&M was also 17 points out. It overstated the Labour share by 9 points and understated UKIP by 8 points also. That would suggest something else was going on in H&M
Ashcroft's Clacton poll was taken over a month before the actual election. Its perfectly feasible for there to have been significant shifts in the vote as a result of the campaign.
There was no shift at Clacton and it's not under discussion so I've no idea what you are going on about. Ashcroft still overestimated Labour's share of the vote.
Lord Ashcroft on his polls in Clacton (accurate) and Heywood (miles out) - his conclusion 'people knew what they were going to do with Carswell, but formed their opinion over the campaign in Heywood:
His margin of error at Heywood & M was 17% and in both polls he overstated Labour's share of the vote. This has been the constant retort of Conservative Central Office and now they have been proved right.
Ashcroft's polls are useless on the very thing that matters most in the majority of his surveys: Labour's share of the vote.
I'm personally glad we can consign him to the waste bin and stick to proper pollsters. The man has been punching above his weight for far too long. He's a political has-been.
Actually am I not right in thinking that Ashcroft's pollster is Populus ? The same pollster as David Cameron. The only difference being in Ashcroft's polls he prompts for UKIP along with the established parties?
Do the Ashcroft polls prompt? I thought they didn't prompt for anyone.
Looking at the `Next UKIP leader` market think Diane James 5/1 is a good bet.She is an attractive female with a background in healthcare and business which ticks the boxes of what UKIP should be looking for
What some YouTube videos of her.
The ones from the Eastleigh by-election, she comes over well. Others, not so good.
Tim Aker the value bet for me
I can't see any of them challenging Mr Farage.
How would a UKIP leadership contest work? Is it one member one vote?
Yeah its not a bet Id have unless a contest was called really.. but if anyone was thinking of it I think Tim is the value at 12s
You've really missed the point. Every poll overstated Labour's share of the vote. Ashcroft was particularly far out in Labour's heartlands. We have endured thread after thread about how Labour was doing better in the marginals due to Ashcroft polling which, it now transpires, is bilge.
The reason I suggest you're missing the point is that it's UKIP who could be most aggrieved at his rubbish polling in H&M (not the Tories). If UKIP had known they were that close they could conceivably have gone on a blitz over the final week and landed it.
It would be more accurate to pin a tail on a donkey blindfold, following several bottles of SeanT Shiraz and a few 360 degree turns than it would be to trust Lord Ashcroft polling. If ICM is the Gold standard, Ashcroft is Poundland.
I have no doubt that Lord Ashcroft is sincere in trying to get the best possible polling.
If you have a problem with it, then feel free to fund your own.
Why would Cameron want to debate with Farage on TV? He has already seen what happened to Nick Clegg in the EU debates.
Rightly or wrongly immigration is a top issue for voters. Neither Cameron nor other parties have a solution to uncontrolled immigration from the EU in the way that Farage does with EU exit.
In any TV debate Farage just has to keep repeating that the only way to control immigration from the EU is to exit the EU. This is a simple message which every voter will get. The other parties have no answer to this issue and arguments about other important issues are far more subtle and don't cut through to the public - even MPs don't understand the difference between the deficit and the debt or the scale of the debt.
So either Cameron comes up with a new policy to control immigration from the EU or he will have to refuse to have a party leader debate with Farage included.
Whatever OFCOM or the BBC say, Cameron can refuse to join a party leader debate and find an excuse to use to do so.
Does UKIP advocate leaving the EEA? If not, leaving the EU will have zero effect on EU migration
And if they do, where do they plan to accommodate the 2 million Brits who will have to come home from Europe?
In the same places as the two million foreigners that come here every four years under a Cameron-led government? At least it would be a one-off.
Besides, I'm sure some sort of reciprocal arrangement can be arranged, where long-term residents of other countries could be grandfathered in. I know UKIP have suggested those that have been here for seven years could get a visa. Frankly, places like Spain would be mad to chuck out the retirees that are spending British pensions in Andalusia and propping up their house prices.
By the way, as an aside it's also a general psephological warning that large sample sizes do not necessarily make for more accurate polling, but that's for another day.
Why would Cameron want to debate with Farage on TV? He has already seen what happened to Nick Clegg in the EU debates.
Rightly or wrongly immigration is a top issue for voters. Neither Cameron nor other parties have a solution to uncontrolled immigration from the EU in the way that Farage does with EU exit.
In any TV debate Farage just has to keep repeating that the only way to control immigration from the EU is to exit the EU. This is a simple message which every voter will get. The other parties have no answer to this issue and arguments about other important issues are far more subtle and don't cut through to the public - even MPs don't understand the difference between the deficit and the debt or the scale of the debt.
So either Cameron comes up with a new policy to control immigration from the EU or he will have to refuse to have a party leader debate with Farage included.
Whatever OFCOM or the BBC say, Cameron can refuse to join a party leader debate and find an excuse to use to do so.
Does UKIP advocate leaving the EEA? If not, leaving the EU will have zero effect on EU migration
And if they do, where do they plan to accommodate the 2 million Brits who will have to come home from Europe?
There is no need to accommodate them - just like there would be no need for the French or Poles to accommodate anyone currently in Britain. NO one on either side of the debate is advocating the mass (or even minor) repatriation of people settled in any European countries.
This is yet another of those very silly straw man arguments put up by those who oppose the UK leaving the EU.
Lord Ashcroft on his polls in Clacton (accurate) and Heywood (miles out) - his conclusion 'people knew what they were going to do with Carswell, but formed their opinion over the campaign in Heywood:
His margin of error at Heywood & M was 17% and in both polls he overstated Labour's share of the vote. This has been the constant retort of Conservative Central Office and now they have been proved right.
Ashcroft's polls are useless on the very thing that matters most in the majority of his surveys: Labour's share of the vote.
I'm personally glad we can consign him to the waste bin and stick to proper pollsters. The man has been punching above his weight for far too long. He's a political has-been.
Survation's poll for H&M was also 17 points out. It overstated the Labour share by 9 points and understated UKIP by 8 points also. That would suggest something else was going on in H&M
Ashcroft's Clacton poll was taken over a month before the actual election. Its perfectly feasible for there to have been significant shifts in the vote as a result of the campaign.
Non-EU immigration can be controlled by a points system - and should be the job of the relevant UK embassy. All Business visitors should be invited by a UK business who are their guarantor. Similarly universities have to be the guarantor of their students and their visa expires the day after graduation.
In any case benefits should be limited to those who have paid NI & TAX for five years before citizenship is granted. Committing a criminal offence during that time would mean automatic refusal of citizenship.
EU immigration can be controlled more by limiting benefits to the minimum given by any one of the EU countries - would the EU throw the UK out? - no.
Of course both the LDs and Labour would vote all of this down.
A word of thanks is in order for the Scottish people who have a boost to democracy.If 85% can vote in the indyref,isn't it a disgrace that,even with huge media attention,2 crucial English parliamentary by-elections only produced 36 and 51% turnouts? The real message is the lack of democratic engagement in England.The non-voters won the 2 by-elections.The English are one step closer to a fascist take-over.
You've really missed the point. Every poll overstated Labour's share of the vote. Ashcroft was particularly far out in Labour's heartlands. We have endured thread after thread about how Labour was doing better in the marginals due to Ashcroft polling which, it now transpires, is bilge.
The reason I suggest you're missing the point is that it's UKIP who could be most aggrieved at his rubbish polling in H&M (not the Tories). If UKIP had known they were that close they could conceivably have gone on a blitz over the final week and landed it.
It would be more accurate to pin a tail on a donkey blindfold, following several bottles of SeanT Shiraz and a few 360 degree turns than it would be to trust Lord Ashcroft polling. If ICM is the Gold standard, Ashcroft is Poundland.
I sincerely hope that UKIP are not making tactical campaign decisions based purely on public polling. They had people canvassing & campaigning up there and have their own pollster (Survation). Any decisions should have been taken on local impressions. Clearly what they were seeing on the ground must have fitted with the polls.
They might well have taken some notice of Survation's public polling though and I suspect might be a little aggrieved with them as a result. Ashcroft's poll (covering the same and subsequent period) confirmed those findings. However I cannot see they have any right to be aggrieved at Ashcroft. His polling should not particularly come into their calculations other than a campaigning device when appropriate (as in Clacton).
That's my thinking about the Greenies. IIRC It's the same argument used to defeat Salmond > if you aren't standing in the majority of seats - you aren't in the game.
The form of words I used in my alternate history of the 2010 debates (where a choice to make the rules explicit allowed UKIP to game them and get into the debates) was:
‘The debates would be restricted to the Leaders of Parties standing in the majority of constituencies with existing representation in the House of Commons’
- Polling scores could be volatile. - Restricting it to simply standing in the majority of seats allows someone like James Goldsmith to effectively buy his way into the debates. And could have given the BNP a lectern as well. - Choosing a number of MPs as the threshold is subjective and down to argument. Fifty? Then it would be read as having excluded the Lib Dems when they had 40 or so - or in the Eighties when they had barely 20+. But go too low, and you have that the SNP had 11 MPs in the late Seventies, so arguments can develop - Having any MPs is qualitatively different from having none (this was set before the election and Caroline Lucas's election), so that choice of words legitimised The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and no-one else.
If they chose that today, we'd have 5 eligible Parties (assuming the Greens stood in all constituencies), though.
Lord Ashcroft on his polls in Clacton (accurate) and Heywood (miles out) - his conclusion 'people knew what they were going to do with Carswell, but formed their opinion over the campaign in Heywood:
His margin of error at Heywood & M was 17% and in both polls he overstated Labour's share of the vote. This has been the constant retort of Conservative Central Office and now they have been proved right.
Ashcroft's polls are useless on the very thing that matters most in the majority of his surveys: Labour's share of the vote.
I'm personally glad we can consign him to the waste bin and stick to proper pollsters. The man has been punching above his weight for far too long. He's a political has-been.
Survation's poll for H&M was also 17 points out. It overstated the Labour share by 9 points and understated UKIP by 8 points also. That would suggest something else was going on in H&M
Ashcroft's Clacton poll was taken over a month before the actual election. Its perfectly feasible for there to have been significant shifts in the vote as a result of the campaign.
There was no shift at Clacton and it's not under discussion so I've no idea what you are going on about. Ashcroft still overestimated Labour's share of the vote.
Clacton was taken over A MONTH before the election. Things can change significantly in that timescale. You complained that his poll over-estimated Labour's vote. I have explained how that could reasonably happen.
Re H&M
Survation's poll was taken on the 30th September
Ashcrofts poll was taken from the 30th September to the 4th October (how many respondents responded each day is unknown ~ they could mainly have been contacted on the 30th for all we know)
Both were 17 points out. Both over-estimated the Labour position.
Evidence? Prejudiced salami slicing if you ask me? Quoting that psephological expert Guido reporting Crosby and Shapps priceless)? Seriously you really do need to do better!
That's my thinking about the Greenies. IIRC It's the same argument used to defeat Salmond > if you aren't standing in the majority of seats - you aren't in the game.
The form of words I used in my alternate history of the 2010 debates (where a choice to make the rules explicit allowed UKIP to game them and get into the debates) was:
‘The debates would be restricted to the Leaders of Parties standing in the majority of constituencies with existing representation in the House of Commons’
- Polling scores could be volatile. - Restricting it to simply standing in the majority of seats allows someone like James Goldsmith to effectively buy his way into the debates. And could have given the BNP a lectern as well. - Choosing a number of MPs as the threshold is subjective and down to argument. Fifty? Then it would be read as having excluded the Lib Dems when they had 40 or so - or in the Eighties when they had barely 20+. But go too low, and you have that the SNP had 11 MPs in the late Seventies, so arguments can develop - Having any MPs is qualitatively different from having none (this was set before the election and Caroline Lucas's election), so that choice of words legitimised The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and no-one else.
If they chose that today, we'd have 5 eligible Parties (assuming the Greens stood in all constituencies), though.
So what is different from James Goldsmith buying the seats for the Tories or buying the seats for a Referendum party? Is it any different than the Trade Unions buying Labour into the debates? The deposit for a candidate is the same price for everyone.
Excluding a party because you don't like what they stand for or what they represent is offensive is anti-democratic. If they are that bad they should be banned otherwise they should be treated equally!
That's my thinking about the Greenies. IIRC It's the same argument used to defeat Salmond > if you aren't standing in the majority of seats - you aren't in the game.
The form of words I used in my alternate history of the 2010 debates (where a choice to make the rules explicit allowed UKIP to game them and get into the debates) was:
‘The debates would be restricted to the Leaders of Parties standing in the majority of constituencies with existing representation in the House of Commons’
- Polling scores could be volatile. - Restricting it to simply standing in the majority of seats allows someone like James Goldsmith to effectively buy his way into the debates. And could have given the BNP a lectern as well. - Choosing a number of MPs as the threshold is subjective and down to argument. Fifty? Then it would be read as having excluded the Lib Dems when they had 40 or so - or in the Eighties when they had barely 20+. But go too low, and you have that the SNP had 11 MPs in the late Seventies, so arguments can develop - Having any MPs is qualitatively different from having none (this was set before the election and Caroline Lucas's election), so that choice of words legitimised The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and no-one else.
If they chose that today, we'd have 5 eligible Parties (assuming the Greens stood in all constituencies), though.
So what is different from James Goldsmith buying the seats for the Tories or buying the seats for a Referendum party? Is it any different than the Trade Unions buying Labour into the debates? The deposit for a candidate is the same price for everyone.
Excluding a party because you don't like what they stand for or what they represent is offensive is anti-democratic. If they are that bad they should be banned otherwise they should be treated equally!
First point: Because any rich person could simply buy publicity for him/herself Second point: Regardless of how any of us feel, the practicalities are that very few in the media would be comfortable at opening the door for the BNP - or National Front. We've seen that in the past, with the controversy around the BNP finally getting a seat on Question Time (I think it was?)
That's my thinking about the Greenies. IIRC It's the same argument used to defeat Salmond > if you aren't standing in the majority of seats - you aren't in the game.
So what is different from James Goldsmith buying the seats for the Tories or buying the seats for a Referendum party? Is it any different than the Trade Unions buying Labour into the debates? The deposit for a candidate is the same price for everyone.
Excluding a party because you don't like what they stand for or what they represent is offensive is anti-democratic. If they are that bad they should be banned otherwise they should be treated equally!
First point: Because any rich person could simply buy publicity for him/herself Second point: Regardless of how any of us feel, the practicalities are that very few in the media would be comfortable at opening the door for the BNP - or National Front. We've seen that in the past, with the controversy around the BNP finally getting a seat on Question Time (I think it was?)
1) Seriously? They are going to get 325 plus individuals to stand for parliament and pay out £150,000 or more just to get few hours publicity where if they haven't got something credible to say they will be slaughtered? I'm sure someone that wealthy would have a more efficient and less risky way of publicising themselves than that if they wanted to.
2) Who made the media arbiters of our democracy? I'm sure our rabid media would have relished slaughtering the BNP in the debates nearly as much as they would enjoy all the column space they could fill up with the should they /shouldn't they debate beforehand. The bottom line is the Griffin appearance happened.
Comments
We had these arguments before the last general election. Fact remained Labour did better than the polls suggested.
His poll at H&M was taken the weekend before the poll and he was 17% out.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/labour-set-clear-win-heywood-middleton/
http://order-order.com/2014/10/10/ashcroft-polls-margin-of-error-was-17/
Evidence dear boy.
If you have a problem with it, then feel free to fund your own.
Qualifying only just finished so the markets won't be ready yet, but I'll try and get the pre-race piece up within an hour so.
Rather unexpected grid, and an interesting qualifying session.
Besides, I'm sure some sort of reciprocal arrangement can be arranged, where long-term residents of other countries could be grandfathered in. I know UKIP have suggested those that have been here for seven years could get a visa. Frankly, places like Spain would be mad to chuck out the retirees that are spending British pensions in Andalusia and propping up their house prices.
This is yet another of those very silly straw man arguments put up by those who oppose the UK leaving the EU.
UKIP certainly think if the campaign was longer they would have won....
In any case benefits should be limited to those who have paid NI & TAX for five years before citizenship is granted. Committing a criminal offence during that time would mean automatic refusal of citizenship.
EU immigration can be controlled more by limiting benefits to the minimum given by any one of the EU countries - would the EU throw the UK out? - no.
Of course both the LDs and Labour would vote all of this down.
The real message is the lack of democratic engagement in England.The non-voters won the 2 by-elections.The English are one step closer to a fascist take-over.
They might well have taken some notice of Survation's public polling though and I suspect might be a little aggrieved with them as a result. Ashcroft's poll (covering the same and subsequent period) confirmed those findings. However I cannot see they have any right to be aggrieved at Ashcroft. His polling should not particularly come into their calculations other than a campaigning device when appropriate (as in Clacton).
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=6e34bbc130-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-6e34bbc130-71623245
‘The debates would be restricted to the Leaders of Parties standing in the majority of constituencies with existing representation in the House of Commons’
- Polling scores could be volatile.
- Restricting it to simply standing in the majority of seats allows someone like James Goldsmith to effectively buy his way into the debates. And could have given the BNP a lectern as well.
- Choosing a number of MPs as the threshold is subjective and down to argument. Fifty? Then it would be read as having excluded the Lib Dems when they had 40 or so - or in the Eighties when they had barely 20+. But go too low, and you have that the SNP had 11 MPs in the late Seventies, so arguments can develop
- Having any MPs is qualitatively different from having none (this was set before the election and Caroline Lucas's election), so that choice of words legitimised The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and no-one else.
If they chose that today, we'd have 5 eligible Parties (assuming the Greens stood in all constituencies), though.
Re H&M
Survation's poll was taken on the 30th September
Ashcrofts poll was taken from the 30th September to the 4th October (how many respondents responded each day is unknown ~ they could mainly have been contacted on the 30th for all we know)
Both were 17 points out. Both over-estimated the Labour position.
Evidence? Prejudiced salami slicing if you ask me? Quoting that psephological expert Guido reporting Crosby and Shapps priceless)? Seriously you really do need to do better!
Excluding a party because you don't like what they stand for or what they represent is offensive is anti-democratic. If they are that bad they should be banned otherwise they should be treated equally!
Second point: Regardless of how any of us feel, the practicalities are that very few in the media would be comfortable at opening the door for the BNP - or National Front. We've seen that in the past, with the controversy around the BNP finally getting a seat on Question Time (I think it was?)
i) be a national party
ii) be ministrable
2) Who made the media arbiters of our democracy? I'm sure our rabid media would have relished slaughtering the BNP in the debates nearly as much as they would enjoy all the column space they could fill up with the should they /shouldn't they debate beforehand. The bottom line is the Griffin appearance happened.