The worst thing about the London olympics was the opening ceremony nhs section. By some margin.
FACT.
Missed the dance of the placemen pas de deux with David Nicholson and Cynthia Bower, and off stage chorus of dancing skeletons twisting a Staffordshire Knot around unmade beds.
A question - If one were to aggregate say ten polls is there a case to be made for using the raw unweighted data from each and then using THAT over and above simply using the headline (weighted) outcomes of each poll ?
Well there's certainly a case for weighting by sample size, so a poll of 1000 is given twice the weight of one of 500. However, most polls are around 1000 anyhow, so in practice it's an insignificant issue.
I doubt there's a case for using raw data. Each house has it's own sampling methodology, with known biases, which are then "corrected" to produce the headline figure. It's best to take the presented figures at face value, perhaps then trying to estimate and control for any residual house bias. I've never heard of doing it differently.
Daves stoking of irrational immigration fears still impacting on older Tory voters.
53% of Tories now citing it, 23% Labour 27% Lib Dems. With huge regional and age differences Younger people and people in London fairly immune to the rabble rousing, Dave is pushing Tories to UKiP very effectively.
What a sad scared pathetic country the ageing right want us to be
Daves stoking of irrational immigration fears still impacting on older Tory voters.
53% of Tories now citing it, 23% Labour 27% Lib Dems. With huge regional and age differences Younger people and people in London fairly immune to the rabble rousing, Dave is pushing Tories to UKiP very effectively.
What a sad scared pathetic country the ageing right want us to be
As someone now in the second half of his 70's, I despair for my contemporaries. We used to march against the bomb, we used to REALLY want something better.
It's tragic that the old and right wing are pitifully scared by this Cameron campaign.The country and party that gave us Churchill cowering in the suburbs afraid of Bulgarian electricians. And even more stupid of Cameron to be doing it thinking he can out UKIP UKIP
Who is pitifully scared? Any quotes?
People resenting their neighbourhood drastically changing in a short space of time or their wages being undercut isnt the same as being scared.
If I'm a sample of the old I didn't "give you" Churchill. At 75+ I was about 18 months old when WWII started. One set of my grandparents "gave you" Churchill; my earliest political memory is of my (tribal Tory voting) mother worrying about doing what my (tribal Labour voting and serviceman) father wanted her to do, and voting Labour in 1945.
Daves stoking of irrational immigration fears still impacting on older Tory voters.
53% of Tories now citing it, 23% Labour 27% Lib Dems. With huge regional and age differences Younger people and people in London fairly immune to the rabble rousing, Dave is pushing Tories to UKiP very effectively.
What a sad scared pathetic country the ageing right want us to be
Why scared?
Don't ask me, I don't know why the old right wingers are so pathetic.
Since January when the genius Cameron started banging on about Europe and immigration the salience of immigration has risen from 21% to 34%, but it hasn't been across the board
Among Lib Dems and Labour voters it's gone from 22 to 27% and 18 to 23% respectively. Among Tories it's gone from 31% to 52%
So a 5% rise among Lib Dem and Labour, 22% among Tories. Who then bugger off and vote UKIP.
As a political strategy from Cameron this is on a par with Madonna arousing a gay male audience.
@Tim Are you still in denial about most of UKIP's most recent gains being at the expense of Labour? How else do you explain Labour's falling vote share?
What are you going to say if the dozy pillock gets back to cross over? We are getting close to MoE on that now.
Is the salience of any issue directly correlated with underlying data? Does education go up and down the agenda with GCSE results? Does healthcare as an issue become more important when cancer rates increase? I suppose the economy will do this, but I can't imagine any others do.
Of course not. These issues, like immigration, are complex things, and most people will be concerned about them most of the time. When an issue isn't on the political agenda it might not be the half a dozen or so that are on the top of your mind when a pollster asks you, but that doesn't mean you don't care about it.
@tim I will have more confidence in your post on immigration when you and your family move to multicultural/racial area,instead of been a part of the billy bragg society.
How is that going bonkers over immigration? It's just a larger number saying they have a concern, it doesn't measure the strength of concern among such people. The reality is that David Cameron isn't the one putting this on the national agenda. It's got there because (a) Romanians and Bulgarians are about to get carte blanche to come here, (b) just a couple of years ago we saw riots in a number of cities that fully exposed the social breakdown in our society, to which immigration adds extra stress, and (c) when there is less money to go round, people start wondering about the wisdom of importing lots of poor people.
You are correct when you mention that many immigrants are high-earning and high-skilled, but there are an awful lot that are not, and people want to see that controlled. Right now, all three of our major parties think that the 40-50% of our immigration that comes from the EU should be uncontrolled. That is completely out of whack with public opinion. We shouldn't be surprised that when a party emerges that does represent so much of the public, it becomes a major issue. It would happen whatever Cameron said.
Just spotted this ~ only 487 of the 1003 sampled identified themselves as either Con, Lab or Libdem. Thats only 49% of the sample. Checking back through previous years (May figures unless otherwise specified) the percentages for the establishment parties are:
Just spotted this ~ only 487 of the 1003 sampled identified themselves as either Con, Lab or Libdem. Thats only 49% of the sample. Checking back through previous years (May figures unless otherwise specified) the percentages for the establishment parties are:
Just spotted this ~ only 487 of the 1003 sampled identified themselves as either Con, Lab or Libdem. Thats only 49% of the sample. Checking back through previous years (May figures unless otherwise specified) the percentages for the establishment parties are:
Look at the data, it's Tories who are older,more likely to be out of the labour market and the SE outside London in particular who have been aroused. Dave aroused them and they've gone off for a dance with that wag Nigel.
At the risk of getting involved in a chicken & egg argument, wasnt Dave reacting to the UKIP surge?
Just spotted this ~ only 487 of the 1003 sampled identified themselves as either Con, Lab or Libdem. Thats only 49% of the sample. Checking back through previous years (May figures unless otherwise specified) the percentages for the establishment parties are:
Establishment parties no longer have a majority of the electorate backing them? Low turnout in 2015?
Not necessarily: there could be a higher turnout because UKIP are attracting people who haven't voted for years.
Indeed certainly part of it is the UKIP uprising. However given the general lack of enthusiasm for any of the major parties and remember this doesn't take into consideration likelihood to vote it could well also suggest unless something significant changes we could be looking at a low turnout.
Comments
I doubt there's a case for using raw data. Each house has it's own sampling methodology, with known biases, which are then "corrected" to produce the headline figure. It's best to take the presented figures at face value, perhaps then trying to estimate and control for any residual house bias. I've never heard of doing it differently.
People resenting their neighbourhood drastically changing in a short space of time or their wages being undercut isnt the same as being scared.
How did you manage that while posting on here @tim?
What are you going to say if the dozy pillock gets back to cross over? We are getting close to MoE on that now.
http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/male-donation-frequency-faqs/
Is the salience of any issue directly correlated with underlying data? Does education go up and down the agenda with GCSE results? Does healthcare as an issue become more important when cancer rates increase? I suppose the economy will do this, but I can't imagine any others do.
Of course not. These issues, like immigration, are complex things, and most people will be concerned about them most of the time. When an issue isn't on the political agenda it might not be the half a dozen or so that are on the top of your mind when a pollster asks you, but that doesn't mean you don't care about it.
How is that going bonkers over immigration? It's just a larger number saying they have a concern, it doesn't measure the strength of concern among such people. The reality is that David Cameron isn't the one putting this on the national agenda. It's got there because (a) Romanians and Bulgarians are about to get carte blanche to come here, (b) just a couple of years ago we saw riots in a number of cities that fully exposed the social breakdown in our society, to which immigration adds extra stress, and (c) when there is less money to go round, people start wondering about the wisdom of importing lots of poor people.
You are correct when you mention that many immigrants are high-earning and high-skilled, but there are an awful lot that are not, and people want to see that controlled. Right now, all three of our major parties think that the 40-50% of our immigration that comes from the EU should be uncontrolled. That is completely out of whack with public opinion. We shouldn't be surprised that when a party emerges that does represent so much of the public, it becomes a major issue. It would happen whatever Cameron said.
2008* 68%
2009 58% (expenses scandal)
2010 62%
2011 59%
2012 53%
2013 49%
*First detail available is August 2008
Establishment parties no longer have a majority of the electorate backing them? Low turnout in 2015?
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive.aspx?contenttype=Issues+Facing+Britain+(Issues+Index)&date=2007&datefield=published
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBjLqZ0BIqU
http://order-order.com/2013/05/30/infographic-ed-v-gordon/
At the risk of getting involved in a chicken & egg argument, wasnt Dave reacting to the UKIP surge?
Bit of both seems most likely
Labour’s leader is weak, indecisive, lacks clarity, and has turned his party into a vacuum
Writes Michael Gove.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10089425/Ed-Miliband-is-a-blancmange-in-a-hurricane.html