Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two Mondays ago the Populus and the Ashcroft had an 11 poin

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two Mondays ago the Populus and the Ashcroft had an 11 point gap over the LAB lead

Mondays have become the biggest polling day of the week witch at least three new surveys being reported. In the morning we get Populus online, the afternoon Lord Ashcroft and the normal YouGov in the evening. Today we’ve got a new London YouGov survey for the Evening Standard (see below).

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015
    OGH bursts on to call Lab first lead of the year in Ashcroft..... What great news... !!!

    Except its wrong - it's a tie.

    Gold standard - Labour version... ie ignore (until next week). Clearly an outlier. Tories obv 6% ahead.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Surely it's a tie?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    There is a very obvious lay which comes about as a result of all this... which was being tipped up as a back yonks ago. It was a back then, but now its a lay
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    I don't understand this thread at all. It seems peculiar.

    Lord Ashcroft doesn't have a Labour lead.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates

    So you've found things that come to - in total - less than 5% of the value of fines paid for by (any of):

    BNP Paribas
    Citigroup
    Lloyds TSB
    RBS
    JP Morgan
    Well Fargo
    Barclays

    Yet, none of those seem to be "giant criminal conspiracies".

    Preumably, therefore, Citigroup is a giant criminal conspiracy too, as they've been fined repeatedly and had to settle criminal suits?

    You speak as if the fines levied on Goldman are an accurate gauge of their criminal wrong-doing, rather than watered down slaps on the wrists for a company that is, in allegedly the words of one of its own employees, "too connected to fail". Goldman has its tentacles more effectively in government than several of the other organisations you list, so it can dodge the fines better. That's all part of the game.

    Although I am amused at the argument "The bank Goldman Sachs isn't a legally and criminally dodgy organisation - all these other bankers have been fined even more!"
    In any organisation where people are paid for the profits they generate, then the temptation to bend the rules to make personal profit will be strong.

    In software companies, this is shown by dodgy sales deals to secure commission revenue.
    In consumer electronics, there have been numerous examples of "side letters" which allowed buyers to back out of contracts under certain circumstances.
    In finance companies (including, but not limited to, Goldman Sachs), employees have entered into transactions that have turned out to be illegal.

    That human beings are greedy and will twist rules for personal profit is not news. Investment banks, which give their employees unprecedented degrees of freedom to make money, will likely end up paying fines and firing employees with alarming regularity. But this is also why compliance departments have become increasingly important within banks; because, in the real world, it is costly to hand over billions of dollars to regulators, and most banks would rather not do so.
  • Every pollster produces the occasional outlier.

    Today it is Lord Ashcroft's turn, a fortnight ago it was the turn of Populus.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited January 2015

    I don't understand this thread at all. It seems peculiar.

    Lord Ashcroft doesn't have a Labour lead.

    Er.....A tie on the graph and the numbers....

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015
    @TheScreamingEagles

    Regarding your 4/6 on Clegg getting the least percentage of the leaders

    The odds have drifted and my mate at Betfair said that they were going to cut the prices on political bets v quickly if anyone half shrewd came on

    I assumed no one touched the 4/6 other than mug money

    Have you gone in again at 4/5? Is it a good bet we should all be backing?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015

    I don't understand this thread at all. It seems peculiar.

    Lord Ashcroft doesn't have a Labour lead.

    The mask slips.... now at ankle level.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Every pollster produces the occasional outlier.

    Today it is Lord Ashcroft's turn, a fortnight ago it was the turn of Populus.

    Lord Ashcroft is only 1% away from remaining the Gold Standard.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Every pollster produces the occasional outlier.

    Today it is Lord Ashcroft's turn, a fortnight ago it was the turn of Populus.

    A fortnight ago Ashcroft's poll was a bigger outlier than the Populus. They both were outliers though.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    Two of the three UKIP members on trial for electoral fraud are cleared according to the Gt Yarmouth Mercury. Jury still out on the other one, who faced more charges.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    They're 32% each Mike. I think you may need to scrap this thread completely and start again.
  • "Today they both have CON 1 point adrift"

    No they don't.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Two weeks ago we had the double embarrassment of two pollsters being just about on the two possible margins of error. Today - not so much...
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    And the Conservatives have gone up 3%

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 16s 16 seconds ago
    Ashcroft National Poll, 23-25 January: CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 9%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • Laughable poll this - so volatile you might as well ignore it.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    In fact I'm finding your pink tainted spectacles are getting rather wearisome Mike. Unless Lord A is retracting his tweet 32% a piece is a tie, and the Conservatives have also gone up, by 3%.

    All MoE mind you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Two weeks ago we had the double embarrassment of two pollsters being just about on the two possible margins of error. Today - not so much...

    It's not embarrassing at all, outliers are a necessary condition for poll averaging accuracy. See www.538.com for details.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited January 2015
    It seems it is now about as difficult to admit you will vote LibDem as it is to admit you had a Jim'll Fix It badge....

    Minibus for Mister Day.....Minibus for Mister Day..... Your party of one is ready.....
  • How many PB Tories does it take to point out a tie?

    An infinite number - many do it repeatedly as if speaking to the deaf.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    How many PB Tories does it take to point out a tie?

    An infinite number - many do it repeatedly as if speaking to the deaf.

    Quite.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    OGH determined to prove that he is human and makes mistakes just like the rest of us. Point proven Mike.

    But you are of course right in pointing out the remarkable way in which these pollsters have converged. Herding. One of the most interesting links I have read in 2015.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Jeez this is a howler of a thread.

    Its a 32/32 draw, with the SNP at 3% in the Scottish sub sample.

    Next....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sean_F said:

    Surely it's a tie?

    But not a Kipper tie...

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    How many PB Tories does it take to point out a tie?

    An infinite number - many do it repeatedly as if speaking to the deaf.

    Labourites now celebrating a tie - changed days.
  • How many PB Tories does it take to point out a tie?

    An infinite number - many do it repeatedly as if speaking to the deaf.

    Luckily there's no need for the purples to do so otherwise we'd risk the 'kipper tie' joke appearing on this thread to kill it off entirely.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Prior to adjustment, the figures were Lab 32%, Con 31%, UKIP 16%, Green 9%, Lib Dem 6%.

    Reallocation of don't knows makes it a tie. That would imply that the figures for England only are Con 34%, Lab 34%, UKIP 16%.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2015
    Made mistake with chart which has been taken down
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Investment banks, which give their employees unprecedented degrees of freedom to make money, will likely end up paying fines and firing employees with alarming regularity. But this is also why compliance departments have become increasingly important within banks; because, in the real world, it is costly to hand over billions of dollars to regulators, and most banks would rather not do so.

    The "unprecedented degrees of freedom" is all about turning the other way while you allow your employees to make money through dishonest and illegal means. The compliance departments are just there as a fig leaf so that the banks can claim "It was a bad apple! Nothing to do with me gov!" Compliance departments are regularly staffed with the least able people at a bank, because the banks aren't serious about actually stopping the illegal activity.

    They're quite happy to pay fines if it allows them to engage in activity that makes more money than they pay out. These fines are considered as a cost of business: something to be kept to a minimum, but ready to be paid if they allow a greater revenue to be made. No organization who was serious about behaving in an ethical manner would have so many crimes be committed on such a regular basis.

    Their corruption and lack of ethics is shown even further by the fact that they lean on American politicians to lean on the SEC not to press charges. The leaked Goldman tapes show that SEC officials were scared of angering Goldman in their investigations, because they know they would face retribution. Also see the amount of money they donated to Republican politicians to stop a consumer protection bureau being enacted.

    Face it, Goldman Sachs is an immoral, corrupt organisation that only cares about their own greed for money, and doesn't give a damn about who is harmed by their actions.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Mr. F, if England-only is a tie, doesn't that mean Scotland+Wales also must be a tie, or very close to one (between blues and reds)?
  • TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:

    Surely it's a tie?

    But not a Kipper tie...

    I was wrong........... that's the end. Next.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    That would imply that the figures for England only are Con 34%, Lab 34%, UKIP 16%.

    Still a decent swing to labour....all still to play for
  • Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    I once headlined a piece saying ICM had a poll with the Tories 7% ahead when it was Lab 7% ahead.

    Fortunately only JackW noticed.
  • Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    I once headlined a piece saying ICM had a poll with the Tories 7% ahead when it was Lab 7% ahead.

    Fortunately only JackW noticed.

    The kippers don't. They are courageously correct retrospectively.

    Troll over and out.
  • I don't think we should take the 3 point drop for the LibDems too seriously; Lord Ashcroft's polls have been volatile in the past, and somehow I doubt that the LibDems have really mislaid one third of their voters in the last week.

    Of course that doesn't alter the wider concern for the party, that it doesn't seem to be pulling itself up from the dire lows we've now become used to.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    'Finally, to reveal more of the psychology of voters’ underlying perceptions, the crucial question of the week: if each party leader were a car, what car would they be?'

    On Nigel Farage the groups were divided: a Ford Capri (“tinted windows, pimped”), with a “shiny exterior but then you look under the bonnet”...
  • The old smoothie.

    Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·2 mins2 minutes ago
    Revised @LordAshcroft poll Tweet. The first survey from him this year that doesn't have LAB behind.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    PB Diplomacy V:
    Just Mr. Foxinsox left to confirm.

    Been Russia in 2/3 games, so it'll be interesting to such which realm benefits from my wise diplomacy this time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Betting viewpoint:

    The dire Scottish situation for Labour isn't being repeated in England, Labour is still doing fine in England, particularly in London.

    But nevertheless if they lose seats in Scotland it'll make Most Seats a tricky ask for them.

    However if the Conservatives lose seats in England, and the Lib Dems take the inevitable cream crackering in both Scotland and England then well it leaves Mr Cameron short of allies to form a coalition.

    The collorary is that Ed Miliband is more likely to become the next PM than Labour having most seats. It also makes Labour most seats, Labour most votes a very narrow margin, if at all - Scotland will go from being a massively efficient driver of seats/votes to quite possibly being a terrible drag on Labour's overall efficiency... (If you believe its not the case take the Evens on Labour in West Dunbartonshire where they start off 40 pts ahead...) that makes Lab Seats, Con votes a lay in my book and thats precisely what I did this morning to "green up" the votes/seats book.

    I'm maintaining my position on Ed Miliband next PM (& Ed Balls next CoTE), but have the green in Con votes and Con seats now in the seats/votes matrix.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Pulpstar said:
    Couldn't help lolling at Audreyanne's moral outrage. One percent like :)

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Investment banks, which give their employees unprecedented degrees of freedom to make money, will likely end up paying fines and firing employees with alarming regularity. But this is also why compliance departments have become increasingly important within banks; because, in the real world, it is costly to hand over billions of dollars to regulators, and most banks would rather not do so.

    The "unprecedented degrees of freedom" is all about turning the other way while you allow your employees to make money through dishonest and illegal means. The compliance departments are just there as a fig leaf so that the banks can claim "It was a bad apple! Nothing to do with me gov!" Compliance departments are regularly staffed with the least able people at a bank, because the banks aren't serious about actually stopping the illegal activity.

    They're quite happy to pay fines if it allows them to engage in activity that makes more money than they pay out. These fines are considered as a cost of business: something to be kept to a minimum, but ready to be paid if they allow a greater revenue to be made. No organization who was serious about behaving in an ethical manner would have so many crimes be committed on such a regular basis.

    Their corruption and lack of ethics is shown even further by the fact that they lean on American politicians to lean on the SEC not to press charges. The leaked Goldman tapes show that SEC officials were scared of angering Goldman in their investigations, because they know they would face retribution. Also see the amount of money they donated to Republican politicians to stop a consumer protection bureau being enacted.

    Face it, Goldman Sachs is an immoral, corrupt organisation that only cares about their own greed for money, and doesn't give a damn about who is harmed by their actions.
    You have provided no evidence, not even a shred, that Goldman Sachs is any different from any other firm in financial services. Nor that it is any more immoral than any other company. Your allegations regarding compliance are also completely off-base.

    Essentially, you have decided they are criminal, and now seek to find evidence to back up your world view.

    Cognitive dissonance.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Mr. F, if England-only is a tie, doesn't that mean Scotland+Wales also must be a tie, or very close to one (between blues and reds)?

    No separate figure for Wales, but Labour are only 7% ahead of the Tories in the Scottish sub-sample (the SNP are way ahead of both).
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,240

    In fact I'm finding your pink tainted spectacles are getting rather wearisome Mike.

    It continues to bemuse me why you post on OGH's website given your evident disdain for him.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .

    Oh - Now that is interesting - if that's herding starting then its bad news for poll averaging accuracy.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    Still not taking any notice of the polls until February I see
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    The old smoothie.

    Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·2 mins2 minutes ago
    Revised @LordAshcroft poll Tweet. The first survey from him this year that doesn't have LAB behind.

    Haha: classic!
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    The Conservatives are only up 3% because of the extra adjustment , a direct comparison would show them still at 29% .
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    Fenster said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Couldn't help lolling at Audreyanne's moral outrage. One percent like :)

    Psephological rather than moral I think, but it's more about the way the thread was put together to show something about Labour lead convergence. I didn't understand it, and it was based on false data.

    Anyway, moving on, Mike's highlighted the really big issue which is the LibDem slump. They're in serious trouble at this rate.

    p.s. Waiting for Isam to point out that I'm referring to polls already, some 5 days too soon. Tut tut my bad.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    isam said:

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    Still not taking any notice of the polls until February I see
    Very Yoda. So next Monday's polls will be a-ok then. What a difference a week makes :)

    EDIT: My goodness, I parsed that entirely incorrectly. Ignore.
  • Scrap

    :)

    Harry

    I don't recall celebrating - more lolling at Audrey
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    Still not taking any notice of the polls until February I see
    Love your new pic Sam - that obsession with Cameron still burning strongly - like an ex-girlfriend..

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015

    'Finally, to reveal more of the psychology of voters’ underlying perceptions, the crucial question of the week: if each party leader were a car, what car would they be?'

    On Nigel Farage the groups were divided: a Ford Capri (“tinted windows, pimped”), with a “shiny exterior but then you look under the bonnet”...
    There was me expecting a focus group in Brighton to be all over Nige like a cheap suit

    I suppose if they'd compared one of the leaders to a single decker bus powered by vegetable oil or a cranky looking hippy on a 1960s bicycle they would have been taken as insults despite being meant as compliments
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited January 2015
    Like all the others, Ashcroft poll indicates nothing more than the tiniest of movements in the electorate at this time. No sign of any surge towards the Tories.

    Labour likely to go into Feb with a wafer thin average lead.

    Which is better than certain anti EdM pundits were predicting.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Pulpstar said:

    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .

    Oh - Now that is interesting - if that's herding starting then its bad news for poll averaging accuracy.
    The weighted tables [ for example page 7 ] does indeed show a 1% Labour lead. Then his Lordship removes the spiral of silence and makes the two parties equal.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    BenM said:

    Like all the others, Ashcroft poll indicates nothing more than the tiniest of movements in the electorate at this time. No sign of any surge towards the Tories.

    Labour likely to go into Feb with a wafer thin average lead.

    Which is better than certain anti EdM pundits were predicting.

    Apropos of nothing, I think you need a new picture for the run up to the election. "Regulate Global Financing NOW!" is sooooo 2010.
  • Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015
    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    Still not taking any notice of the polls until February I see
    Love your new pic Sam - that obsession with Cameron still burning strongly - like an ex-girlfriend..

    Thanks.. obsession with Cameron though? I reckon you are thinking of someone else, I barely mention him and don't particularly like or dislike him

    Your picture is a piss take of UKIP for pointing out the Tories ethnic slurs in Thurrock isnt it?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:



    You have provided no evidence, not even a shred, that Goldman Sachs is any different from any other firm in financial services. Nor that it is any more immoral than any other company. Your allegations regarding compliance are also completely off-base.

    Essentially, you have decided they are criminal, and now seek to find evidence to back up your world view.

    Cognitive dissonance.

    My God, look at yourself. I have provided ample evidence of the criminal wrong-doing within Goldman Sachs and on their harassing of regulators to prevent such crimes being investigated. Whatever other banks have or have not done does not change such criminality. It's a classic attempt at whataboutery by someone that is sensitive about their previous employer. Meanwhile, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever, and haven't engaged with any of my arguments about the behaviour Goldman has carried out. You just claim others are worse.

    Face it. You can't defend their indefensible behaviour: forming cartels, price-rigging, lying to clients, leaning on regulators, hiding debt, buying opposition to regulations that help regular people but hurt their own bottom line. These are regular, common occurrences at Goldman and are so pervasive you can't pretend it's one or two that slipped through the net. You have an emotional defensiveness because you have worked for an utterly unethical organisation and have been unable to challenge any of this. That's cognitive dissonance.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Ashcroft published VI is 32-32.

    Why has someone put 31-32 on Wiki?

    This is just getting silly - we need consistent numbers - if you are capable of taking the trouble to update Wiki is it really too difficult to type in the correct numbers?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    surbiton said:

    Pulpstar said:

    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .

    Oh - Now that is interesting - if that's herding starting then its bad news for poll averaging accuracy.
    The weighted tables [ for example page 7 ] does indeed show a 1% Labour lead. Then his Lordship removes the spiral of silence and makes the two parties equal.
    The direct comparison with the previous poll is Table 3 Page 5 where Labour had a 4% lead .
    The question is - did Lord Ashcroft introduce the extra step to avoid publishing a poll with Labour 3% ahead or was he always planning this methodology change to come in now .
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I see The Good Lord is promising his Scottish Constituency polling next week.

    Just 7 days left to hunt out the value people.

    Also, anyone interested in playing a game of "Which Scottish Consituency NOT polled by Ashcroft will see the largest SNP implied odds change?".

    I'll go for Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill, and as a fall back incase that one is polled Ayrshire Central
  • Anorak said:

    BenM said:

    Like all the others, Ashcroft poll indicates nothing more than the tiniest of movements in the electorate at this time. No sign of any surge towards the Tories.

    Labour likely to go into Feb with a wafer thin average lead.

    Which is better than certain anti EdM pundits were predicting.

    Apropos of nothing, I think you need a new picture for the run up to the election. "Regulate Global Financing NOW!" is sooooo 2010.
    I'd always thought it was red nose day related as I focus on the content of Mr M's always amusing Owen Jones impersonations and had missed that entirely...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    Just checking here as I have a mate who can get on with Betfair sportsbook in big size, you are recommending that 4/6 Clegg least votes of the leaders as a big bet aren't you?

    Based on your insider knowledge of private polling etc

    Surprised its not a headline tip, that's what the site is all about isn't it? Using our knowledge to come out with corking bets
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .

    What is the difference between Tables 3,and 4. Basically a 3% Labour "weighted" lead vanishes.
  • isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    Just checking here as I have a mate who can get on with Betfair sportsbook in big size, you are recommending that 4/5 Clegg least votes of the leaders as a big bet aren't you?
    You would be wrong.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    Just checking here as I have a mate who can get on with Betfair sportsbook in big size, you are recommending that 4/5 Clegg least votes of the leaders as a big bet aren't you?
    You would be wrong.
    Its not a good bet? But you have backed it!

    I thought you had seen polling that said it was.. and now its 4/5 from 4/6 it must be even better?

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    A New York Fed employee, recorded on how to police Goldman Sachs:

    "... we don't want to discourage Goldman from disclosing these types of things in the future, and therefore maybe you know some comment that says don't mistake our inquisitiveness, and our desire to understand more about the marketplace in general, as a criticism of you as a firm necessarily. Like I don't want to, I don't want to hit them on the bat with the head, and they say screw it we're not gonna disclose it again, we don't need to."

    http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/7-revelations-those-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    Just checking here as I have a mate who can get on with Betfair sportsbook in big size, you are recommending that 4/5 Clegg least votes of the leaders as a big bet aren't you?
    You would be wrong.
    Its not a good bet?
    It is a good bet.

    I never said big bet.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    isam said:

    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    We pb Tories do love you Mike really, just think sometimes the mistakes seem deliberate, and some of your threads skewed never to pick out Conservative positives of which there are currently plenty.

    Anyway, the Conservatives are up 3% against the last from which we can take very little except that with poll convergence Lab/Cons seems to be around 32% ish. So the bigger story is the way the Green vote looks strong: 9%, and UKIP a long way shy of their 2014 surge.

    And the other, even bigger, story is the LibDem slump. That's brilliant news for the Conservatives.

    Still not taking any notice of the polls until February I see
    Love your new pic Sam - that obsession with Cameron still burning strongly - like an ex-girlfriend..

    Thanks.. obsession with Cameron though? I reckon you are thinking of someone else, I barely mention him and don't particularly like or dislike him

    Your picture is a piss take of UKIP for pointing out the Tories ethnic slurs in Thurrock isnt it?
    It would be good if Dave procured for his new friend Amjad a high appointment in the Church of England. Another Tory Bishop Bashir in the HoL...

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2015
    I love the way how a good poll for the tories move the betting markets, yet the opposite hardly has any effect. The betting markets are (at least for now) clearly dominated tory cash - it's almost starting to look like the romney/intrade phenomenon.

    You can, right now, get 2.25 on EdM to be PM after the election from either PP or b365.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election

    I guess there are probably limited stakes on that bet, but even on betfair you can get the same odds for about £400, which also gives the option to trade out later.

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116758783

    That's just silly. The odds on EM & DC are basically the wrong way around. I've been nibbling at the EDM price in recent days, up to 2.38.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. F, if England-only is a tie, doesn't that mean Scotland+Wales also must be a tie, or very close to one (between blues and reds)?

    No separate figure for Wales, but Labour are only 7% ahead of the Tories in the Scottish sub-sample (the SNP are way ahead of both).
    Labour on UNS is now on 14 seats. Pretty bad. Tories still on 1. Bookies still has Labour favourites for 30 seats. SNP 25. This after IPSOS / MORI [ Sample size 774 ]

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    surbiton said:

    We should note that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not comparable to previous Ashcroft polls . The tables have an extra step and set of adjustments , Comparison with the previous poll shows that Labour would have a 3% lead without this extra step .

    What is the difference between Tables 3,and 4. Basically a 3% Labour "weighted" lead vanishes.
    Table 3 has the VI of 726 respondents , table 4 only 549 . Deducing that is only those 10/10 certain to vote ie equivalent to an Ipsos Mori poll
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    What factually incorrect statement did I make?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Socrates said:

    A New York Fed employee, recorded on how to police Goldman Sachs:

    "... we don't want to discourage Goldman from disclosing these types of things in the future, and therefore maybe you know some comment that says don't mistake our inquisitiveness, and our desire to understand more about the marketplace in general, as a criticism of you as a firm necessarily. Like I don't want to, I don't want to hit them on the bat with the head, and they say screw it we're not gonna disclose it again, we don't need to."

    http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/7-revelations-those-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes

    Good source. They're backing Sryiza's anti-austerity aim to the hilt, so no danger of them having an axe to grind.

    http://www.alternet.org/krugman-ending-delusional-nightmare-austerity-economics
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Lab majority on BF 9.2, the longest odds yet...

    Tories steaming in on most seats too, 1.92.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited January 2015

    Fenster said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Couldn't help lolling at Audreyanne's moral outrage. One percent like :)

    Psephological rather than moral I think, but it's more about the way the thread was put together to show something about Labour lead convergence. I didn't understand it, and it was based on false data.

    Anyway, moving on, Mike's highlighted the really big issue which is the LibDem slump. They're in serious trouble at this rate.

    p.s. Waiting for Isam to point out that I'm referring to polls already, some 5 days too soon. Tut tut my bad.
    Keep up the good work. I find it difficult to get as worked-up about politics as some, I'm here because I enjoy the bloodsport. I did dislike Gordon Brown vehemently though; particularly didn't like the way he was coronated and imposed on us as a shite PM.

    Interesting that BenM is sanguine about the polls. Ben is obviously a Labour supporter and his stance is intriguing. The polls on the whole are intriguing.

    I really wanted the Tories to win the GE2010 but felt that - given the awful economic circumstances - they'd almost definitely be miles behind in the polls at this stage. I think the Tory hierarchy will likely be equally as sanguine as Ben, particularly given Ed Miliband's shortcomings (I see Ed Miliband as nice, clever and decent but woefully inadequate as leader - a very, very good backroom adviser, I suspect). To be level-pegging at this stage will not disturb the government.

    At the next GE I'd like to see another Tory/Lib Dem coalition. I think the mixture of sound money and liberal values is a good one. I'm also very apprehensive about leaving the EU. I don't really trust the EU politicos; I don't like it's unaccountability and horse-trading and back-room deals, but I'm very unsure about leaving it. I like thought of a united, allied Europe. I want to be part of that without us losing our ability to make ALL our own laws.

    I suspect Mr Cameron would quite fancy another coalition too, as his views on the EU are probably middle of the road too.

    I'm gonna get slaughted now by the anti EU'ers...

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Calm down.

    We've all made mistakes.

    This argument would have more credibility coming from someone who doesn't repeatedly bring up previous mistakes openly admitted to by those he is arguing with.
    We admit/retract when wrong.

    Have you admitted you were wrong yesterday re Cameron and Ms Oakeshott?
    Just checking here as I have a mate who can get on with Betfair sportsbook in big size, you are recommending that 4/5 Clegg least votes of the leaders as a big bet aren't you?
    You would be wrong.
    Its not a good bet?
    It is a good bet.

    I never said big bet.
    Righto, Nick Clegg to poll the least of the leaders at 4/6 is a good bet you say, so even better now its drifted to 4/5

    But you wont take EVENS
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Pong said:

    I love the way how a good poll for the tories move the betting markets, yet the opposite hardly has any effect. The betting markets are (at least for now) clearly dominated tory cash - it's almost starting to look like the romney/intrade phenomenon.

    You can, right now, get 2.25 on EdM to be PM after the election from either PP or b365.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election

    I guess there are probably limited stakes on that bet, but even on betfair you can get the same odds for about £400, which also gives the option to trade out later.

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116758783

    That's just silly. The odds on EM & DC are basically the wrong way around. I've been nibbling at the EDM price in recent days, up to 2.38.

    If the Conservatives and Labour tie, in terms of votes cast, then Ed is almost certainly PM.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited January 2015
    Pong said:

    I love the way how a good poll for the tories move the betting markets, yet the opposite hardly has any effect. The betting markets are (at least for now) clearly dominated tory cash - it's almost starting to look like the romney/intrade phenomenon.

    You can, right now, get 2.25 on EdM to be PM after the election from either PP or b365.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election

    I guess there are probably limited stakes on that bet, but even on betfair you can get the same odds for about £400, which also gives the option to trade out later.

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116758783

    That's just silly. The odds on EM & DC are basically the wrong way around. I've been nibbling at the EDM price in recent days, up to 2.38.

    I quite agree, especially as all Labour's woes are basically in Scotland (I think the Green "surge" is small beer in comparison) with the SNP publicly saying they won't do a deal with the Conservatives.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Populus Scotland Crossbreak
    SNP 35 Lab 37 Con 18 LD 3 UKIP 5 Grn 2
    _____
    That would translate into the following seats..
    LAB….39 down two
    SNP……15 up 9
    CON….3 up 2
    LIB….2 down 9.
    Great night for all unless you’re a Lib/Dem.

    That should keep Audreyanne balanced and happy until February.

    Also according to her analysis people who get paid monthly will be paid this week.
    So the conservatives will get a boost as they look at their credit card bills from christmas
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    I didn't take Lord Ashcroft's polls particularly seriously when he had a tory lead and I don't now. Having said that these are just catastrophic numbers for the Lib Dems. They really should be on their way back by now and it is getting even worse.

    The London poll shows the consequences compared to the 2010 election as well. This could really be carnage.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Is the direct comparator in this poll giving Labour a 1 point lead?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Anorak said:

    Socrates said:

    A New York Fed employee, recorded on how to police Goldman Sachs:

    "... we don't want to discourage Goldman from disclosing these types of things in the future, and therefore maybe you know some comment that says don't mistake our inquisitiveness, and our desire to understand more about the marketplace in general, as a criticism of you as a firm necessarily. Like I don't want to, I don't want to hit them on the bat with the head, and they say screw it we're not gonna disclose it again, we don't need to."

    http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/7-revelations-those-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes

    Good source. They're backing Sryiza's anti-austerity aim to the hilt, so no danger of them having an axe to grind.

    http://www.alternet.org/krugman-ending-delusional-nightmare-austerity-economics
    The quote is from the original tapes. You can also see it in the following sources:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771216/Fired-New-York-Fed-worker-unveils-46-hours-secret-taped-meetings-regulators-banking-giant-Goldman-Sachs-showing-government-bankers-pockets.html
    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-secret-tapes-of-fed-meetings-on-goldman-prompt-call-for-us-hearings-2014-9?IR=T
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/30/delamaide-goldman-sachs-federal-reserve/16483611/

    So you can stop your playing of the man and deal with the actual argument.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Sean_F said:

    Pong said:

    I love the way how a good poll for the tories move the betting markets, yet the opposite hardly has any effect. The betting markets are (at least for now) clearly dominated tory cash - it's almost starting to look like the romney/intrade phenomenon.

    You can, right now, get 2.25 on EdM to be PM after the election from either PP or b365.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/prime-minister-after-general-election

    I guess there are probably limited stakes on that bet, but even on betfair you can get the same odds for about £400, which also gives the option to trade out later.

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116758783

    That's just silly. The odds on EM & DC are basically the wrong way around. I've been nibbling at the EDM price in recent days, up to 2.38.

    If the Conservatives and Labour tie, in terms of votes cast, then Ed is almost certainly PM.
    EIACPM?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    BenM said:

    Is the direct comparator in this poll giving Labour a 1 point lead?

    No a direct comparator would give a 3% Labour lead
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    BenM said:

    Is the direct comparator in this poll giving Labour a 1 point lead?

    No a direct comparator would give a 3% Labour lead
    Getting as complicated to read an Ashcroft poll as it is the ONS's releases on Government finances (up to 58 pages now and all to obfuscate Osborne's massive failure).
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    Anorak said:

    Socrates said:

    A New York Fed employee, recorded on how to police Goldman Sachs:

    "... we don't want to discourage Goldman from disclosing these types of things in the future, and therefore maybe you know some comment that says don't mistake our inquisitiveness, and our desire to understand more about the marketplace in general, as a criticism of you as a firm necessarily. Like I don't want to, I don't want to hit them on the bat with the head, and they say screw it we're not gonna disclose it again, we don't need to."

    http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/7-revelations-those-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes

    Good source. They're backing Sryiza's anti-austerity aim to the hilt, so no danger of them having an axe to grind.

    http://www.alternet.org/krugman-ending-delusional-nightmare-austerity-economics
    The quote is from the original tapes. You can also see it in the following sources:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771216/Fired-New-York-Fed-worker-unveils-46-hours-secret-taped-meetings-regulators-banking-giant-Goldman-Sachs-showing-government-bankers-pockets.html
    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-secret-tapes-of-fed-meetings-on-goldman-prompt-call-for-us-hearings-2014-9?IR=T
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/30/delamaide-goldman-sachs-federal-reserve/16483611/

    So you can stop your playing of the man and deal with the actual argument.
    Pfff. That's no fun at all. As it happens I think there are WAAAAY to many ex-GS staff who are now in senior positions in governments and regulators around the world. They are too influential and they have piss-poor ethics. They're referred to as the "vampire squid" for good reason.

    I still think you've gone off the deep end on this. Tin-foil hattery.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    BenM said:

    Is the direct comparator in this poll giving Labour a 1 point lead?

    No a direct comparator would give a 3% Labour lead
    Why has Lord Ashcroft changed his methodology ?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/

    This is a bad thing to happen imo.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Here's another story, detailing how Goldman actually owns commodity warehouses to mess with the supply chain and cause price hikes. If you really believe this is an example of a couple of bad employees rather than a welcomed strategy by Goldman, then I've got a bridge to sell you:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?pagewanted=all

    The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers’ aluminum. Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses. Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits. They load in one warehouse. They unload in another. And then they do it again.

    This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found. The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal. It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    I didn't take Lord Ashcroft's polls particularly seriously when he had a tory lead and I don't now. Having said that these are just catastrophic numbers for the Lib Dems. They really should be on their way back by now and it is getting even worse.

    The London poll shows the consequences compared to the 2010 election as well. This could really be carnage.

    The London poll is equivalent to a 1% Labour lead, overall. Very similar to this morning's Populus poll. I think that Labour will actually fall short in practice in Harrow East, and Southwark and Bermondsey.

    As expected, UKIP underperform their national equivalent in London, and the Greens overperform.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited January 2015
    Not an expert, but It just looks like Ashcroft has included some extra tables along the way to me, rather than any new adjustments. Maybe he's using a different pollster.
  • Greens may yet cross over with the LibDems, if the other polls repeat Lord Ashcroft's findings!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Fenster said:

    Fenster said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Couldn't help lolling at Audreyanne's moral outrage. One percent like :)

    Psephological rather than moral I think, but it's more about the way the thread was put together to show something about Labour lead convergence. I didn't understand it, and it was based on false data.

    Anyway, moving on, Mike's highlighted the really big issue which is the LibDem slump. They're in serious trouble at this rate.

    p.s. Waiting for Isam to point out that I'm referring to polls already, some 5 days too soon. Tut tut my bad.
    Keep up the good work. I find it difficult to get as worked-up about politics as some, I'm here because I enjoy the bloodsport. I did dislike Gordon Brown vehemently though; particularly didn't like the way he was coronated and imposed on us as a shite PM.

    Interesting that BenM is sanguine about the polls. Ben is obviously a Labour supporter and his stance is intriguing. The polls on the whole are intriguing.

    I really wanted the Tories to win the GE2010 but felt that - given the awful economic circumstances - they'd almost definitely be miles behind in the polls at this stage. I think the Tory hierarchy will likely be equally as sanguine as Ben, particularly given Ed Miliband's shortcomings (I see Ed Miliband as nice, clever and decent but woefully inadequate as leader - a very, very good backroom adviser, I suspect). To be level-pegging at this stage will not disturb the government.

    At the next GE I'd like to see another Tory/Lib Dem coalition. I think the mixture of sound money and liberal values is a good one. I'm also very apprehensive about leaving the EU. I don't really trust the EU politicos; I don't like it's unaccountability and horse-trading and back-room deals, but I'm very unsure about leaving it. I like thought of a united, allied Europe. I want to be part of that without us losing our ability to make ALL our own laws.

    I suspect Mr Cameron would quite fancy another coalition too, as his views on the EU are probably middle of the road too.

    I'm gonna get slaughted now by the anti EU'ers...

    Do you honestly believe the Lib Dems would join or be in a position to enter another coalition with the Conservatives ?
This discussion has been closed.