FPT - the Lib Dems. I agree that their 6% polling figure in YouGov is awful. Given how late in the day it is, I'm really not sure what they can do differently now. However, I do question their 'vote for the leash' strategy ("we'll be the Tories heart and Labour's spine") - as it offers them no positive USP.
It surely must make at least as much sense for them to campaign hard on their core values: civil liberties, personal and social freedom and further decentralisation/devolution of power.
They can then campaign on their successes against those headings in this parliament, and what they'd like to do on them in the next.
Yes, it's not going to win them the election. But when you're on 6% you're already at (or below) core vote levels, and they need to do something to shore it up: to stop themselves being snuffed out of existence.
It's far worse to be irrelevant than hated.
Presently the Lib Dems are being squeezed out of the air war.News bulletins feature the Tory and Labour offerings with virtually no LD coverage.They desperately need some good positive policy announcements to get back in the game.Otherwise as you say Casino they will be perceived as irrelevant to the contest and as losers which will make hanging on to seats even more difficult.
And from March 31st the broadcasting rules come in which give guaranteed levels of coverage to both the LDs and UKIP. In my judgement this will hurt the Tories most.
To be honest Mike, you do generally think most future events will hurt the Tories most.
As a genuine question, presumably the equal coverage rules do not ensure positive coverage. A good story for a news editor this morning, for example, would be that LD are yet to field candidates in a large number of seats.... The 'fortress our seats' policy, which seeks to turn low vote share into relatively high numbers of seats could for example cost the LD even more vote share as core voters decide to abandon a party that has chosen to be anything but a national presence....
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Mr. Pulpstar, sounds tremendously serious. They're not stupid. They won't try invading Italy (probably go for Italy, it's nearest), but they could easily send over 'refugees' to commit acts of atrocity.
Just one more reason cutting Defence would be bloody stupid.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
FPT - the Lib Dems. I agree that their 6% polling figure in YouGov is awful. Given how late in the day it is, I'm really not sure what they can do differently now. However, I do question their 'vote for the leash' strategy ("we'll be the Tories heart and Labour's spine") - as it offers them no positive USP.
It surely must make at least as much sense for them to campaign hard on their core values: civil liberties, personal and social freedom and further decentralisation/devolution of power.
They can then campaign on their successes against those headings in this parliament, and what they'd like to do on them in the next.
Yes, it's not going to win them the election. But when you're on 6% you're already at (or below) core vote levels, and they need to do something to shore it up: to stop themselves being snuffed out of existence.
It's far worse to be irrelevant than hated.
The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending.
People seem to want accept the parts of the Ashcroft mix that they like (Lab collapse in Scotland) but not the parts they don't like such as the struggle the Tories are having against the LDs.
Get consistent
There's corroborating evidence for SLAB's woes. There isn't for LibDem triumps
Er, Eastleigh?
One seat, where they had a 1 year lead time on the other parties and threw everything at it.
And yet a real election and consistent with the Ashcroft polling.
There's no evidence that contradicts the Ashcroft polling. Of course it might be wrong anyway, but making that judgement appears to be based on wishful thinking rather than a clear-headed appraisal of the evidence.
No, but the national polling is inconsistent with it.
My view is that the LibDems will do better than national polling, but not as well as Mike thinks. I was historically on around 30 holds, now down to around 25 unless there is a serious recovery
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Question on the Friday deadline for Greece agreement: is this an actual deadline as a normal person would understand this, or another euroland deadline whereby if nothing happens by then they just make a new deadline?
I tipped Halifax as a Tory gain on Monday, the Times are reporting
A former Labour candidate who was caught up in the Falkirk vote-rigging row is considering standing again to become an MP.
Karie Murphy, who is backed by the Unite union, quit as Labour’s candidate for the seat in 2013 after internal allegations that her union had tried to manipulate the party’s selection process in her favour.
The row led Ed Miliband to overhaul the party’s links with unions.
It has emerged that Ms Murphy is considering putting herself forward as Labour’s candidate in the marginal seat of Halifax. Several sources have told The Times that she hopes to be placed on the party’s shortlist.
Unite has recently succeeded in having several of its favoured candidates put forward.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
After Lord A had his numerical faux pas recently do I not recall a comment from him that he wouldn't be using the number crunchers who messed up again. Could this have resulted in him shifting his contract (all or in part) to ICM from the previous operator.
That would chime with TSE saying it looks like Ashcroft format whilst carried out by an organisation not previously known to be an Ashcroft supplier.
With the telephone pollsters, it possibly has occurred.
Are you Sunil's defence barrister?
I think it's interesting. It does look like a consistent difference (between telephone and online). OGH has argued that telephone polls were the most accurate in 2010.
On topic, ICM are a commercial organisation. If someone pays them enough money to carry out a poll., why not ? If someone doesn't want to publish the findings of a poll they have paid for - nothing wrong with that either.
As usual, much jabbering agmong the political tricoteuses about the LDs. It's my experience there is often a last-minute scramble to fill the hopeless seats. If there is no local party or membership to go through the motions of a hustings or ballot, a candidate is simply put in place with an Agent (who would act for several paper candidates) and that will be that.
I don't believe there is an LD candidate in East Ham - perhaps I should give it a go. I would be disappointed if the Party couldn't find a full slate of candidates even if many (indeed the majority) are effectively running paper campaigns.
I'm sure there are Conservative and Labour candidates who will be in a similar position - ditto UKIP and the Greens. The poin, as OGH has to repeat ad nauseam, is piling up 25,000 majorities in Beckenham, Bexhill and Beaconsfield may be good for the Tory soul but it doesn't help as they are only one seat each.
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate) Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
It's probably one of the more significant stories around today, but I guess it will pass under most people's radar.
On topic, ICM are a commercial organisation. If someone pays them enough money to carry out a poll., why not ? If someone doesn't want to publish the findings of a poll they have paid for - nothing wrong with that either.
As usual, much jabbering agmong the political tricoteuses about the LDs. It's my experience there is often a last-minute scramble to fill the hopeless seats. If there is no local party or membership to go through the motions of a hustings or ballot, a candidate is simply put in place with an Agent (who would act for several paper candidates) and that will be that.
I don't believe there is an LD candidate in East Ham - perhaps I should give it a go. I would be disappointed if the Party couldn't find a full slate of candidates even if many (indeed the majority) are effectively running paper campaigns.
I'm sure there are Conservative and Labour candidates who will be in a similar position - ditto UKIP and the Greens. The poin, as OGH has to repeat ad nauseam, is piling up 25,000 majorities in Beckenham, Bexhill and Beaconsfield may be good for the Tory soul but it doesn't help as they are only one seat each.
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate) Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
East Ham itself, given Labour's London strength, their woes in Scotland and the rise of UKIP must surely be favourite for both I'd have thought ?
There is a parallel world to the world of politics which is the world of real business. In this world we have seen the most pro growth government for many many years. Our only concern is that the Government rather than undertaking austerity has been borrowing like crazy to fund the growth.
The idea that the next Government's plan is to borrow even more and spend even more leaves many of us scratching our heads. The only real way this can happen is if we accept a rapidly falling pound. Maybe this is the best political bet to make a long term short of sterling.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
It's probably one of the more significant stories around today, but I guess it will pass under most people's radar.
Have we had anyone else's side of the story? He is very good but also, he is very good at creating huge drama out of not much at all (which is why he is also very readable).
I tipped Halifax as a Tory gain on Monday, the Times are reporting
A former Labour candidate who was caught up in the Falkirk vote-rigging row is considering standing again to become an MP.
Karie Murphy, who is backed by the Unite union, quit as Labour’s candidate for the seat in 2013 after internal allegations that her union had tried to manipulate the party’s selection process in her favour.
The row led Ed Miliband to overhaul the party’s links with unions.
It has emerged that Ms Murphy is considering putting herself forward as Labour’s candidate in the marginal seat of Halifax. Several sources have told The Times that she hopes to be placed on the party’s shortlist.
Unite has recently succeeded in having several of its favoured candidates put forward.
Most interesting. Did she give a reason for not standing in Scotland? (Not, of course, that a shift to the Millstone Grit is illogical or unreasonable by Labour standards: they are the most unified of the political parties, without a separate Scottish party, and a One Nation [= United Kingdom] doctrine.)
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
Last night, I was trawling the internet for information on Chris Atkins, and found "Taking Liberties" a Dispatches program about the abuse of liberties by T.B. and his government. (worth a watch for his many detractors, including myself) https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jX2Ye9D8Qg (link with gap for site rules) http://tinyurl.com/p4en7q3
The real scary thing for me, was it could have been made about several governments, including the present one.
Ima fraid you can't just cherry pick a subset of polls to try and make a case. Delusional.
Neither @OblitusSumMe nor @SeanF shill for either Labour or the Conservatives, to dismiss their noting the phone polls as potentially crossing over would be perhaps foolhardy.
Certainly if you are a bettor it is wise to have this note of caution, whatever your position.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
It's probably one of the more significant stories around today, but I guess it will pass under most people's radar.
Have we had anyone else's side of the story? He is very good but also, he is very good at creating huge drama out of not much at all (which is why he is also very readable).
I have, but they're personal acquaintances and the conversations were private so you will just have to take my word for it.
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate) Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
East Ham itself, given Labour's London strength, their woes in Scotland and the rise of UKIP must surely be favourite for both I'd have thought ?
I'm not so sure. I expect Stephen Timms to poll around 65% but the Conservatives could poll 20% so a 45% differential. I suspect a seat like Bootle might beat that.
Numerically, turnout is always lower in Labour seats so a solid Conservative seat with no real challenger looks the answer. I wonder about Tatton or Beaconsfield - could either see the Conservative romp home with a near 30,000 majority ?
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate) Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
East Ham itself, given Labour's London strength, their woes in Scotland and the rise of UKIP must surely be favourite for both I'd have thought ?
I'm not so sure. I expect Stephen Timms to poll around 65% but the Conservatives could poll 20% so a 45% differential. I suspect a seat like Bootle might beat that.
Numerically, turnout is always lower in Labour seats so a solid Conservative seat with no real challenger looks the answer. I wonder about Tatton or Beaconsfield - could either see the Conservative romp home with a near 30,000 majority ?
I remember driving through Tatton once, you could smell the money wafting over the car from the Premier League mansions in the former fields
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate) Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
East Ham itself, given Labour's London strength, their woes in Scotland and the rise of UKIP must surely be favourite for both I'd have thought ?
I'm not so sure. I expect Stephen Timms to poll around 65% but the Conservatives could poll 20% so a 45% differential. I suspect a seat like Bootle might beat that.
Numerically, turnout is always lower in Labour seats so a solid Conservative seat with no real challenger looks the answer. I wonder about Tatton or Beaconsfield - could either see the Conservative romp home with a near 30,000 majority ?
I remember driving through Tatton once, you could smell the money wafting over the car from the Premier League mansions in the former fields
I briefly lived in Styal which is in Tatton.
My expectations of the women's prison didn't live up to my expectations though.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
There is, but systematic bias particularly in Yougov could well skew that towards Labour slightly.
Yes, of course.
I've always thought YouGov was mildly inclined towards the Conservatives but I am happy to stand corrected if wrong.
As you would know better than most, the important thing is to compare like with like and note the direction of travel each individual pollster is indicating. For the past couple of months that's been very easy, because there isn't any direction of travel - not between blue and red, anyway.
And the overall pattern is a small, persistent red lead. Sometimes WYSIWYG.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
There is, but systematic bias particularly in Yougov could well skew that towards Labour slightly.
Yes, of course.
I've always thought YouGov was mildly inclined towards the Conservatives but I am happy to stand corrected if wrong.
As you would know better than most, the important thing is to compare like with like and note the direction of travel each individual pollster is indicating. For the past couple of months that's been very easy, because there isn't any direction of travel - not between blue and red, anyway.
And the overall pattern is a small, persistent red lead. Sometimes WYSIWYG.
Anthony Wells did an analysis of the various House effects of each pollster
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
You don't think it would be interesting to have two more graphs, one with phone polls only and one with online polls only?
It would be interesting.
Not sure it would alter my betting though. Would you bet the house on Phone Polls being right, again? Do we know that much about the relative merits of the polling methods? Why do people persist with on-line polls if phone polls are manifestly more accurate?
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's worked for me so far.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
It's probably one of the more significant stories around today, but I guess it will pass under most people's radar.
Have we had anyone else's side of the story? He is very good but also, he is very good at creating huge drama out of not much at all (which is why he is also very readable).
I have, but they're personal acquaintances and the conversations were private so you will just have to take my word for it.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
You don't think it would be interesting to have two more graphs, one with phone polls only and one with online polls only?
It would be interesting.
Not sure it would alter my betting though. Would you bet the house on Phone Polls being right, again? Do we know that much about the relative merits of the polling methods? Why do people persist with on-line polls if phone polls are manifestly more accurate?
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's worked for me so far.
Online polls are a lot cheaper than phone polls, that's why people commission them.
Here's why Mike prefers phone polls.
The top pollsters at the last election were phone pollsters.
Conservative: England only shares (Which is all that matters for the Conservatives really) in most recent IPSOS and ICM both at 38%. Appalling ratings of Ed.
Labour: Small but persistent leads in "overall" picture, occasional large lead and only a 10 pt Scottish gap in TNS. Low opinion of brand Conservative. Scotland situation meaning their England vote share must be ~ 1% higher for the same headline vote share than we are used to seeing.
Lib Dem : Rochester and Strood by-election result (Losing 23 out of 24 voters where it doesn't matter), the Scottish polling (1 man and his dog in Motherwell was it ?) and the Ashcroft polls in CON-LD marginals.
UKIP: Going favourite in several target seats with Britain's best bookie judge, vote share declining only marginally despite short broadcast rules not being in place. Incumbency in two seats now.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
That confirms what I'd thought - most of the main pollsters have a bias so small as to be negligible. I think we would have all guessed TNS is the exception, but as long as the bias is consistent, it doesn't really matter. We can factor in the bias to our own assessments, and our betting, of course.
Ima fraid you can't just cherry pick a subset of polls to try and make a case. Delusional.
There is good reason to particularly trust the phone polls - they were much more accurate than the online polls at the 2010 general election.
It's also a worthwhile corrective to the impression that is formed by giving each individual poll equal weight - which massively biases in favour of YouGov and Populus in particular and online polls in general. In January the number of polls by each firm were: YouGov 21 Populus 8 Ashcroft 3 Opinium 3 TNS 2 ComRes (phone) 1 ComRes (online) 1 Survation 1 ICM 1 Ipsos MORI 1 Or aggregating by phone/online: Online 36 Phone 6
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
You don't think it would be interesting to have two more graphs, one with phone polls only and one with online polls only?
It would be interesting.
Not sure it would alter my betting though. Would you bet the house on Phone Polls being right, again? Do we know that much about the relative merits of the polling methods? Why do people persist with on-line polls if phone polls are manifestly more accurate?
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's worked for me so far.
Agree with that. Just because you were right last time is no certainty that you are right again. Circumstances and behaviour change and move on.
I would suggest the data available is greater than ever for this election, the certainty of the result is as uncertain as ever or more uncertain.
If the Sun had commissioned ICM to do a weekly poll say then the narrative would be considerably better for the Conservatives I think.
The obvious thing is that there are far fewer phone polls so they are proportionally a lot more likely to throw up a bunch of unrepresentative polls in a given period due to MOE etc. Clearly, ICM, for example, hasn't generally been great for the Tories in the last few months, but if you look at a short cherry picked period it could be included in a false narrative about the phone polls showing the real picture of crossover that for some reason isnt coming through when taking all polls in aggregate. Its cherry picking, simple as.
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
"Being the gold standard is one thing. Staying there is another."
I agree. Its taken TNS a long time to get to the top.
ICM have produced back to back polls which appear to have Tory scores at opposite extreme ends of the scale. Its not to say that they won't be back on form on future polls or that previous polls weren't generally accurate, or that any other pollster is better.
Just that the gold standard has done back to back outliers.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Well if YouGov have a systemic failure in the methodology they use it is published on 5 or 6 days a week, creating a wonky narrative. If they don't have a systemic error it is disseminating an accurate picture. ICM at the other end of the scale are creating a blip in the narrative 0nce a month, not at all foggy.
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
If the Sun had commissioned ICM to do a weekly poll say then the narrative would be considerably better for the Conservatives I think.
The obvious thing is that there are far fewer phone polls so they are proportionally a lot more likely to throw up a bunch of unrepresentative polls in a given period due to MOE etc. Clearly, ICM, for example, hasn't generally been great for the Tories in the last few months, but if you look at a short cherry picked period it could be included in a false narrative about the phone polls showing the real picture of crossover that for some reason isnt coming through when taking all polls in aggregate. Its cherry picking, simple as.
Any sort of house bias effect massively outweighs Margin of Error.
If you are under 65 with no access to the Gov't free cash and need a 1% return on your money in 79 days... 1-100 looks generous
More rubbish. You are actually giving the govt money for 3 years. It's called National Savings. Macmillan invented premium bonds. It's likely the govt will have 15 bn in its coffers and the interest it pays out will go straight back into the economy and pay vat.
Earlier this morning OGH accused me of being a denier and questioned my predictions because before the 2010 GE I dared to suggest the Scottish Tories might win 4-6 seats.
Well lets look back at 2010 when he and his fellow Yellow Peril were engaging in Cleggasms on a daily basis and were backing 80-120 LibDem MPs on the strength of what proved to be irrelevant polling. they castigated me for daring to suggest the LibDems were more likely to win 50 seats than 80+.
They keep harping on about Ashcroft showing LibDem supremacy where it matters. Utter garbage.
The last Ashcroft LibDem poll was on 28th September, 5 months ago. He looked at 2 LibDem Tory targets, 15 Tory LibDem targets and 5 Labour LibDem targets.
The LibDems were found not to be winning either Tory seat The LibDems were found to be holding 5 out of the 15 Tory targets The LibDems were found to be holding 1 out of 5 Labour targets.
So if potentially holding 30% of your seats is a magical incumbency factor, good stuff.
If you are under 65 with no access to the Gov't free cash and need a 1% return on your money in 79 days... 1-100 looks generous
More rubbish. You are actually giving the govt money for 3 years. It's called National Savings. Macmillan invented premium bonds. It's likely the govt will have 15 bn in its coffers and the interest it pays out will go straight back into the economy and pay vat.
Why aren't they being offered to everyone if they're such a great idea ?
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
If you're not paying attention to the speed limits, what else are you missing when driving? When you're in charge of a ton of metal travelling at high speed, it's reasonable to expect you to be on your top game at all times.
Earlier this morning OGH accused me of being a denier and questioned my predictions because before the 2010 GE I dared to suggest the Scottish Tories might win 4-6 seats.
Well lets look back at 2010 when he and his fellow Yellow Peril were engaging in Cleggasms on a daily basis and were backing 80-120 LibDem MPs on the strength of what proved to be irrelevant polling. they castigated me for daring to suggest the LibDems were more likely to win 50 seats than 80+.
They keep harping on about Ashcroft showing LibDem supremacy where it matters. Utter garbage.
The last Ashcroft LibDem poll was on 28th September, 5 months ago. He looked at 2 LibDem Tory targets, 15 Tory LibDem targets and 5 Labour LibDem targets.
The LibDems were found not to be winning either Tory seat The LibDems were found to be holding 5 out of the 15 Tory targets The LibDems were found to be holding 1 out of 5 Labour targets.
So if potentially holding 30% of your seats is a magical incumbency factor, good stuff.
The Conservatives could end up anywhere between 0 and 4 Scottish seats.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
Why are you simply cherry-picking polls you like?
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
Don't be silly. Anybody can highlight the extremes, but just cast your eye casually down the table of polling results this year:
Yes, that certainly suggests the phone pollsters are winning the argument. The differences aren't huge - I suppose if they were nobody would commission on-line polls at all, even though they're cheaper - and if they're repeated at this election they will have a very strong case indeed.
It's definitely worth factoring in, along with all the other factors.
Phone hacking discredits Sun, Mirror and the now defunct News of the World.
The Express is discredited due to sheer idiocy of its stories and its clueless ramping of the racist UKIP.
Leaving the Times, Indy, Mail and Guardian. Bastions of free speech my backside.
Oborne's letter was a bit poignant. I was a in Tenby a few years back with the missus and picked up Max Hastings's Editor book, about his time as Editor of the Telegraph. He described a world in million miles away from the world I live in, but the people who worked there came across as a bunch of sophisticated, intelligent folk with high morals and strong values. Conservatives yes, and no doubt middle-to-upper class types with money and privilege but seekers of truth and justice and upholders of Great British values nonetheless (you can probably imagine how Hastings came across, he is obviously one of the gentry).
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
Hmm.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
I totally agree, Oborne is an emotional character, but there's no doubting that newspapers like the Telegraph (and - I think - the Independent) have gone downhill this past ten years.
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
If you're not paying attention to the speed limits, what else are you missing when driving? When you're in charge of a ton of metal travelling at high speed, it's reasonable to expect you to be on your top game at all times.
You don't drive do you ?
Variable speed limits are on a big board on the screen. You get there and it goes from 70 to 50.
The camera is right next to the 50 sign. Most motorists can't slow down that quick.
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
You are surely joking.
In the same way that justice must be done and be seen to be done - well the law needs to be fair and be seen to be fair. Respect for the law and for the police is getting ever lower because we have ever more indefensibly shitty laws. And the traffic laws are at the forefront of not-fit-for-purpose shittiness. I purport that it is actually not possible for any driver to comply 100% with the traffic laws 100% of the time. To lawyers this must look like a feature more than a bug.
(FWIW I think we should re-do our traffic laws and then enforce them rigidly - but today's mess is not there)
Not sure about the reasoning here, given the by-products seems to be some sort of vapour rather than actual smoke.
Nicotine? Plus it's meant to make you feel like Audrey Hepburn or George Clooney as opposed to The Crankies. (I doubt the adverts will feature Cruella de Ville)
FPT - the Lib Dems. I agree that their 6% polling figure in YouGov is awful. Given how late in the day it is, I'm really not sure what they can do differently now. However, I do question their 'vote for the leash' strategy ("we'll be the Tories heart and Labour's spine") - as it offers them no positive USP.
It surely must make at least as much sense for them to campaign hard on their core values: civil liberties, personal and social freedom and further decentralisation/devolution of power.
They can then campaign on their successes against those headings in this parliament, and what they'd like to do on them in the next.
Yes, it's not going to win them the election. But when you're on 6% you're already at (or below) core vote levels, and they need to do something to shore it up: to stop themselves being snuffed out of existence.
It's far worse to be irrelevant than hated.
The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending.
People seem to want accept the parts of the Ashcroft mix that they like (Lab collapse in Scotland) but not the parts they don't like such as the struggle the Tories are having against the LDs.
Get consistent
There's corroborating evidence for SLAB's woes. There isn't for LibDem triumps
Er, Eastleigh?
One seat, where they had a 1 year lead time on the other parties and threw everything at it.
And yet a real election and consistent with the Ashcroft polling.
There's no evidence that contradicts the Ashcroft polling. Of course it might be wrong anyway, but making that judgement appears to be based on wishful thinking rather than a clear-headed appraisal of the evidence.
No, but the national polling is inconsistent with it.
My view is that the LibDems will do better than national polling, but not as well as Mike thinks. I was historically on around 30 holds, now down to around 25 unless there is a serious recovery
The Ashcroft polling is consistent with the national polling. The key point is the difference between the two questions used in the Ashcroft polling.
On the first question the Lib Dems do horrendously badly in the seats that they hold, entirely in line with the national polls. It's only with the second question, asking them to think about their specific constituency, that they poll higher.
If the Sun had commissioned ICM to do a weekly poll say then the narrative would be considerably better for the Conservatives I think.
The obvious thing is that there are far fewer phone polls so they are proportionally a lot more likely to throw up a bunch of unrepresentative polls in a given period due to MOE etc. Clearly, ICM, for example, hasn't generally been great for the Tories in the last few months, but if you look at a short cherry picked period it could be included in a false narrative about the phone polls showing the real picture of crossover that for some reason isnt coming through when taking all polls in aggregate. Its cherry picking, simple as.
Any sort of house bias effect massively outweighs Margin of Error.
The house effects documented by AW at UKPR are generally within +/- 2%, which is less than usual MOE, no?
Ditch the motorway speed limits, prosecute Lorries that attempt to overtake each other on the A1, middle lane hoggers and up sentences for drivers that drive recklessly past horses and cyclists on the roads.
...and still no LibDem in Nick's seat. They polled nearly 9,000 votes last time. Most of them have got to go somewhere.
You have to credit the Yellow Pox with some brains. You are right - 9,000 votes have to go somewhere. In not running a candidate they have recognised the reality that they aren't going to the LibDems.
BTW interesting to hear about OGH doing a vote swap - what a great idea! Must be some way to get that going nationally....
They will have a candidate in the end - I know the only serious volunteer well and he's a nice, not very partisan, guy who would get a decent personal vote even if he didn't say a word. They don't, I understand, plan to campaign beyond an election address, though they'll naturally fight hard for their borough seats.
One of the local quirks that make seats vary is that there is a local Lab-LD coalition, sometimes quarrelsome but basically intact, and under relentless attack from AS (though not especially the local Tory councillors) for 5 years. A lot of local LibDems have been waiting patiently for the chance to do something about it.
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
If you're not paying attention to the speed limits, what else are you missing when driving? When you're in charge of a ton of metal travelling at high speed, it's reasonable to expect you to be on your top game at all times.
You don't drive do you ?
Variable speed limits are on a big board on the screen. You get there and it goes from 70 to 50.
The camera is right next to the 50 sign. Most motorists can't slow down that quick.
If the number is on a big board on a screen, you should be able to read it from a fair distance.
One of the reasons that I rarely drive is because I am keenly aware of the responsibility I take on when driving. We live in a nation of Mr Toads who are quite insouciant about the annual death of a small village every year on the roads.
In 100 years' time, the average attitudes to driving today will seem as incomprehensible to our great grandchildren as the 19th century attitudes towards the Opium Wars seem today.
The last ComRes 'phone poll had Con 31 Lab 30. Averaging the most recent 'phone polls puts the Conservatives slightly ahead (by 0.5%). Online polls have Labour ahead by c2% on average. Broadly, Labour and UKIP do slightly better online, the Conservatives do slightly better on the 'phone. If we had more 'phone polls, we'd probably have more Conservative leads.
Agreed.
The fog of Yougov, and to a lesser extent Populus, may be clouding some thinking where the sheer volume of polls weights opinion towards those two pollsters published findings.
ud judgement or balance.
Agreed, Philip, but there is a consistency across a wide range of polls using different techniques and reporting with varying frequency.
Six letters
TNS ICM
You don't think it would be interesting to have two more graphs, one with phone polls only and one with online polls only?
It would be interesting.
Not sure it would alter my betting though. Would you bet the house on Phone Polls being right, again? Do we know that much about the relative merits of the polling methods? Why do people persist with on-line polls if phone polls are manifestly more accurate?
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's worked for me so far.
Agree with that. Just because you were right last time is no certainty that you are right again. Circumstances and behaviour change and move on.
I would suggest the data available is greater than ever for this election, the certainty of the result is as uncertain as ever or more uncertain.
Yes, I agree, although the uncertainty has nothing to do with the quality of the data, which is fuller and better than ever.
The race is tight, and minor Parties are playing a more significant role than usual. That's what is making the election difficult to call.
If you could do a ton ten on the motorway to get where you need to go, then you'd be able to stick to 30 in built up areas, rather than itching to do 40 because you've been restricted to 50 for supposed roadworks on the motorway that are never actually there
Looking at phone pollsters in isolation can be very good.
A couple of years ago, I did a thread looking at the movements in the phone pollsters.
It became clear to me that the phone pollsters were picking up a Lab to UKIP swing that the online pollsters weren't (this was when people thought UKIP were only a threat to the Tories)
I was accused of cherry picking data then.
But eventually the online pollsters started showing this trend.
Even the Editor of Labour list commended me for this prescient analysis
"Overall, both the major parties will be alarmed, The Tories are consistently polling near their core vote level, Labour will be alarmed to be shedding quite so many votes, and the fact they aren’t the repository of the mid term protest vote in the way UKIP are."
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
If you're not paying attention to the speed limits, what else are you missing when driving? When you're in charge of a ton of metal travelling at high speed, it's reasonable to expect you to be on your top game at all times.
You don't drive do you ?
Variable speed limits are on a big board on the screen. You get there and it goes from 70 to 50.
The camera is right next to the 50 sign. Most motorists can't slow down that quick.
If the number is on a big board on a screen, you should be able to read it from a fair distance.
One of the reasons that I rarely drive is because I am keenly aware of the responsibility I take on when driving. We live in a nation of Mr Toads who are quite insouciant about the annual death of a small village every year on the roads.
In 100 years' time, the average attitudes to driving today will seem as incomprehensible to our great grandchildren as the 19th century attitudes towards the Opium Wars seem today.
Nothing to do with the fact that London has an excellent public transport system and driving a car round it seems like a complete nightmare ?
Ditch the motorway speed limits, prosecute Lorries that attempt to overtake each other on the A1, middle lane hoggers and up sentences for drivers that drive recklessly past horses and cyclists on the roads.
I'm not sure about 'ditching' motorway limits, but they definitely need revising.
A hefty fine for pootling along along at 60 in an overtaking lane seems fair.
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Or alternatively, drivers could obey the law.
It's the variable speed limit ones that pee me off.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
If you're not paying attention to the speed limits, what else are you missing when driving? When you're in charge of a ton of metal travelling at high speed, it's reasonable to expect you to be on your top game at all times.
You don't drive do you ?
Variable speed limits are on a big board on the screen. You get there and it goes from 70 to 50.
The camera is right next to the 50 sign. Most motorists can't slow down that quick.
If the number is on a big board on a screen, you should be able to read it from a fair distance.
One of the reasons that I rarely drive is because I am keenly aware of the responsibility I take on when driving. We live in a nation of Mr Toads who are quite insouciant about the annual death of a small village every year on the roads.
In 100 years' time, the average attitudes to driving today will seem as incomprehensible to our great grandchildren as the 19th century attitudes towards the Opium Wars seem today.
Not when you're near junction 35 of the M1, and the road isn't straight, and boom, you can't see the big board until you get there and the camera is right next to the line where you go from 70 to 50
Surely speeding is a simple issue. We know what the penalties are. If we choose to speed we choose to accept that penalty in the event of being caught. Don't want to risk the penalty? Don't speed. People complaining about choosing to take a risk and getting caught as a result baffle me.
As for variable speed limits on the motorway there is a 60 second grace period - the speed limit adjusts, and 60 seconds later the threshold for the camera adjusts. And as always you can assume limit +10% is safe. Understanding the % overread on your car's speedo always helps.
Ditch the motorway speed limits, prosecute Lorries that attempt to overtake each other on the A1, middle lane hoggers and up sentences for drivers that drive recklessly past horses and cyclists on the roads.
I'm not sure about 'ditching' motorway limits, but they definitely need revising.
A hefty fine for pootling along along at 60 in an overtaking lane seems fair.
I undertook a tremendous number of vehicles on the A1 on Monday, doing 70 MPH in the LEFT lane.
Ditch the motorway speed limits, prosecute Lorries that attempt to overtake each other on the A1, middle lane hoggers and up sentences for drivers that drive recklessly past horses and cyclists on the roads.
I'm not sure about 'ditching' motorway limits, but they definitely need revising.
A hefty fine for pootling along along at 60 in an overtaking lane seems fair.
We have a lot of areas with gantries and variable limits as well so dangerous parts can be monitored.
If there are any Lib Dems in Rochester and Strood and you want to arrange a vote swap with a voter in Sheffield Hallam contact me.
I'll vote for Nick Clegg if you vote for Kelly Tolhurst.
Bit disappointed in this & hope you and MSmithson don't start a trend.
As well as poss of total stitch up, I cherish my vote. Lots of pple around the world don't get the chance. Putting my cross where I mean it to go in the secrecy of the ballot is a principle of democracy.
Disappointing to see runner of this site condoning it. All a bit smutty and demeaning to democracy i reckon.
Comments
@juliahobsbawm: Labour's lack of credibility with business community a running sore now. Latest: @Lord_Bilimoria writes in @thetimes http://t.co/bftYS7B5eE
As a genuine question, presumably the equal coverage rules do not ensure positive coverage. A good story for a news editor this morning, for example, would be that LD are yet to field candidates in a large number of seats.... The 'fortress our seats' policy, which seeks to turn low vote share into relatively high numbers of seats could for example cost the LD even more vote share as core voters decide to abandon a party that has chosen to be anything but a national presence....
Just one more reason cutting Defence would be bloody stupid.
Amazing when you compare to the US which is around 63% (can't find the exact figure).
Being the gold standard is one thing. Staying there is another.
It's sad to see the demise of such a pillar of journalism. Uber capitalism must take some blame for the demise in quality, chasing money over integrity under the ownership of some - as Oborne describes them - 'shadowy', extraordinarily wealthy figures.
My view is that the LibDems will do better than national polling, but not as well as Mike thinks. I was historically on around 30 holds, now down to around 25 unless there is a serious recovery
One is fog because of frequency and one is not. One, both or neither may be right or wrong.
Just because you keep repeating something it won't make it right, however it could cloud judgement or balance.
-Weekly Earnings Ex Bonus (3M/YoY) 1.70% (est 1.80%; prev 1.80%)
Not just unemployment figures that are good.
@paulwaugh: IDS certainly went for it on BBC, re Ed Miliband: "the man in charge of the Labour party who seems to have avoided tax"
is this an actual deadline as a normal person would understand this, or another euroland deadline whereby if nothing happens by then they just make a new deadline?
IPSOS 38%
ICM 38%
Ashcroft (Latest) 31%
Ashcroft (One previous) 36%
Ashcroft (Two previous) 34%
A former Labour candidate who was caught up in the Falkirk vote-rigging row is considering standing again to become an MP.
Karie Murphy, who is backed by the Unite union, quit as Labour’s candidate for the seat in 2013 after internal allegations that her union had tried to manipulate the party’s selection process in her favour.
The row led Ed Miliband to overhaul the party’s links with unions.
It has emerged that Ms Murphy is considering putting herself forward as Labour’s candidate in the marginal seat of Halifax. Several sources have told The Times that she hopes to be placed on the party’s shortlist.
Unite has recently succeeded in having several of its favoured candidates put forward.
Not to say he is wrong but Oborne could sensationalise a packet of digestive biscuits.
After Lord A had his numerical faux pas recently do I not recall a comment from him that he wouldn't be using the number crunchers who messed up again. Could this have resulted in him shifting his contract (all or in part) to ICM from the previous operator.
That would chime with TSE saying it looks like Ashcroft format whilst carried out by an organisation not previously known to be an Ashcroft supplier.
On topic, ICM are a commercial organisation. If someone pays them enough money to carry out a poll., why not ? If someone doesn't want to publish the findings of a poll they have paid for - nothing wrong with that either.
As usual, much jabbering agmong the political tricoteuses about the LDs. It's my experience there is often a last-minute scramble to fill the hopeless seats. If there is no local party or membership to go through the motions of a hustings or ballot, a candidate is simply put in place with an Agent (who would act for several paper candidates) and that will be that.
I don't believe there is an LD candidate in East Ham - perhaps I should give it a go. I would be disappointed if the Party couldn't find a full slate of candidates even if many (indeed the majority) are effectively running paper campaigns.
I'm sure there are Conservative and Labour candidates who will be in a similar position - ditto UKIP and the Greens. The poin, as OGH has to repeat ad nauseam, is piling up 25,000 majorities in Beckenham, Bexhill and Beaconsfield may be good for the Tory soul but it doesn't help as they are only one seat each.
I mention this only because I wonder if some enterprising bookie might like to consider the following;
Largest Majority (percentage lead over next candidate)
Largest Majority (numerical)
Either name the seats for the above (or split it into England, Wales, Scotland and NI for added interest) or try to predict the percentage and the number respectively.
TNS ICM
There is a parallel world to the world of politics which is the world of real business. In this world we have seen the most pro growth government for many many years. Our only concern is that the Government rather than undertaking austerity has been borrowing like crazy to fund the growth.
The idea that the next Government's plan is to borrow even more and spend even more leaves many of us scratching our heads. The only real way this can happen is if we accept a rapidly falling pound. Maybe this is the best political bet to make a long term short of sterling.
He was counting on the pay increase figures slipping back this month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
There's a consistency which is hard to ignore. Labour is maintaining a small but persistent lead.
Phone polls were the most accurate at the last election, online polls the least accurate.
(worth a watch for his many detractors, including myself)
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jX2Ye9D8Qg (link with gap for site rules)
http://tinyurl.com/p4en7q3
The real scary thing for me, was it could have been made about several governments, including the present one.
Very tough remember who is often on the media and makes these predictions, gets them wrong and retains credibility with broadcasters.
Certainly if you are a bettor it is wise to have this note of caution, whatever your position.
Do you bet or do you wish for a Labour Gov't ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-31360682
Not sure about the reasoning here, given the by-products seems to be some sort of vapour rather than actual smoke.
Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon · 18m 18 minutes ago
Now a clear trend that jobs growth coming from full time employee positions. Points to improving job quality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958286/Labour-BAN-stealth-speed-cameras-motorways-forcing-painted-bright-yellow-drivers-them.html
No doubt this will be in the Tory manifesto draft by tomorrow morning...
Numerically, turnout is always lower in Labour seats so a solid Conservative seat with no real challenger looks the answer. I wonder about Tatton or Beaconsfield - could either see the Conservative romp home with a near 30,000 majority ?
ICM have worked with the Sunday Telegraph in the past, so that could be one place to watch on Saturday evening...
They have also done marginals polling in the past (for the NOTW) maybe there will be an ICM marginals polls appearing somewhere soon?
My expectations of the women's prison didn't live up to my expectations though.
If you are under 65 with no access to the Gov't free cash and need a 1% return on your money in 79 days... 1-100 looks generous
I've always thought YouGov was mildly inclined towards the Conservatives but I am happy to stand corrected if wrong.
As you would know better than most, the important thing is to compare like with like and note the direction of travel each individual pollster is indicating. For the past couple of months that's been very easy, because there isn't any direction of travel - not between blue and red, anyway.
And the overall pattern is a small, persistent red lead. Sometimes WYSIWYG.
None of this would matter if either party had a big lead, but in this election, tiny vote shifts could have big outcomes.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9103
YouGov's house effects on Con/Lab is neutral.
Not sure it would alter my betting though. Would you bet the house on Phone Polls being right, again? Do we know that much about the relative merits of the polling methods? Why do people persist with on-line polls if phone polls are manifestly more accurate?
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture. It's worked for me so far.
“I don’t know what Ukip would do if they had a bunch of MPs, but they might well ally with Labour.”
Here's why Mike prefers phone polls.
The top pollsters at the last election were phone pollsters.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/the-pb-2010-polling-league-table/
"Being the gold standard is one thing. Staying there is another."
I agree. Its taken TNS a long time to get to the top.
I suppose a thread with seven EDs is out of the question?
Conservative:
England only shares (Which is all that matters for the Conservatives really) in most recent IPSOS and ICM both at 38%. Appalling ratings of Ed.
Labour:
Small but persistent leads in "overall" picture, occasional large lead and only a 10 pt Scottish gap in TNS. Low opinion of brand Conservative. Scotland situation meaning their England vote share must be ~ 1% higher for the same headline vote share than we are used to seeing.
Lib Dem :
Rochester and Strood by-election result (Losing 23 out of 24 voters where it doesn't matter), the Scottish polling (1 man and his dog in Motherwell was it ?) and the Ashcroft polls in CON-LD marginals.
UKIP:
Going favourite in several target seats with Britain's best bookie judge, vote share declining only marginally despite short broadcast rules not being in place. Incumbency in two seats now.
Thanks TSE.
That confirms what I'd thought - most of the main pollsters have a bias so small as to be negligible. I think we would have all guessed TNS is the exception, but as long as the bias is consistent, it doesn't really matter. We can factor in the bias to our own assessments, and our betting, of course.
It's also a worthwhile corrective to the impression that is formed by giving each individual poll equal weight - which massively biases in favour of YouGov and Populus in particular and online polls in general. In January the number of polls by each firm were:
YouGov 21
Populus 8
Ashcroft 3
Opinium 3
TNS 2
ComRes (phone) 1
ComRes (online) 1
Survation 1
ICM 1
Ipsos MORI 1
Or aggregating by phone/online:
Online 36
Phone 6
I would suggest the data available is greater than ever for this election, the certainty of the result is as uncertain as ever or more uncertain.
You're doing 70. Sign comes up that says you're now in a 50 and there's a camera about 50 yards away that clocks you before you've had the chance to slow down and you get three points on your license for bugger all.
Just that the gold standard has done back to back outliers.
Well lets look back at 2010 when he and his fellow Yellow Peril were engaging in Cleggasms on a daily basis and were backing 80-120 LibDem MPs on the strength of what proved to be irrelevant polling. they castigated me for daring to suggest the LibDems were more likely to win 50 seats than 80+.
They keep harping on about Ashcroft showing LibDem supremacy where it matters. Utter garbage.
The last Ashcroft LibDem poll was on 28th September, 5 months ago.
He looked at 2 LibDem Tory targets, 15 Tory LibDem targets and 5 Labour LibDem targets.
The LibDems were found not to be winning either Tory seat
The LibDems were found to be holding 5 out of the 15 Tory targets
The LibDems were found to be holding 1 out of 5 Labour targets.
So if potentially holding 30% of your seats is a magical incumbency factor, good stuff.
Yes, that certainly suggests the phone pollsters are winning the argument. The differences aren't huge - I suppose if they were nobody would commission on-line polls at all, even though they're cheaper - and if they're repeated at this election they will have a very strong case indeed.
It's definitely worth factoring in, along with all the other factors.
Variable speed limits are on a big board on the screen. You get there and it goes from 70 to 50.
The camera is right next to the 50 sign. Most motorists can't slow down that quick.
In the same way that justice must be done and be seen to be done - well the law needs to be fair and be seen to be fair. Respect for the law and for the police is getting ever lower because we have ever more indefensibly shitty laws. And the traffic laws are at the forefront of not-fit-for-purpose shittiness. I purport that it is actually not possible for any driver to comply 100% with the traffic laws 100% of the time. To lawyers this must look like a feature more than a bug.
(FWIW I think we should re-do our traffic laws and then enforce them rigidly - but today's mess is not there)
0: 25%
1: 50%
2: 30%
3: 4.5%
4: 0.5%
Something like that
Plus it's meant to make you feel like Audrey Hepburn or George Clooney as opposed to The Crankies.
(I doubt the adverts will feature Cruella de Ville)
On the first question the Lib Dems do horrendously badly in the seats that they hold, entirely in line with the national polls. It's only with the second question, asking them to think about their specific constituency, that they poll higher.
One of the local quirks that make seats vary is that there is a local Lab-LD coalition, sometimes quarrelsome but basically intact, and under relentless attack from AS (though not especially the local Tory councillors) for 5 years. A lot of local LibDems have been waiting patiently for the chance to do something about it.
One of the reasons that I rarely drive is because I am keenly aware of the responsibility I take on when driving. We live in a nation of Mr Toads who are quite insouciant about the annual death of a small village every year on the roads.
In 100 years' time, the average attitudes to driving today will seem as incomprehensible to our great grandchildren as the 19th century attitudes towards the Opium Wars seem today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Regiment
A couple of years ago, I did a thread looking at the movements in the phone pollsters.
It became clear to me that the phone pollsters were picking up a Lab to UKIP swing that the online pollsters weren't (this was when people thought UKIP were only a threat to the Tories)
I was accused of cherry picking data then.
But eventually the online pollsters started showing this trend.
Even the Editor of Labour list commended me for this prescient analysis
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/29/polling-averages-and-changes-with-the-phone-pollsters-since-january/
"Overall, both the major parties will be alarmed, The Tories are consistently polling near their core vote level, Labour will be alarmed to be shedding quite so many votes, and the fact they aren’t the repository of the mid term protest vote in the way UKIP are."
A hefty fine for pootling along along at 60 in an overtaking lane seems fair.
As for variable speed limits on the motorway there is a 60 second grace period - the speed limit adjusts, and 60 seconds later the threshold for the camera adjusts. And as always you can assume limit +10% is safe. Understanding the % overread on your car's speedo always helps.
As well as poss of total stitch up, I cherish my vote. Lots of pple around the world don't get the chance. Putting my cross where I mean it to go in the secrecy of the ballot is a principle of democracy.
Disappointing to see runner of this site condoning it. All a bit smutty and demeaning to democracy i reckon.