Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
The analogy would be using a set of rulers to measure one person's heights, and taking measurements a different number of times with each ruler (which each is imperfect), and averaging them together.
Is the failure of Labour's NHS weaponising and the coordinated HSBC tax attack with his BBC & Guardian mates to dent the Tories pressuring Ed into making really stupid decisions?
Just this weekend we've had let's screw anyone with a pension (ie voters) to fund students and now the return of Prescott.
What's next? Brown coming back to front labour's economic strategy? Jackie Smith attacking the "bedroom tax"?
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
The analogy would be using a set of rulers to measure one person's heights, and taking measurements a different number of times with each ruler (which each is imperfect), and averaging them together.
Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... DO things!
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Amusing indeed, and probably fair too with the Greens, although the worry must surely be that as they will never get a chance to implement their economic ideas, would it really dissuade someone considering voting for them as a protest only?
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. .
I bet if YouGov had been showing consistent Tory leads in that period and the statement was '10 of the last 18 polls have Tory leads' there would not be a problem with including the incessant YouGovs.
Blimey - Ed’s net rating amongst his own supporters leaves a lot to be desired.
Indeed. I get her's not great, but it's amazing he is apparently not regarded well by enough of his own party that they are underrating their own chances as a result.
The Greens have all the advantage which the Lib Dems used to have ?None of the policies will ever be implemented. A lot of the Green vote comes from the 18 - 22 year olds. Hence, the reduction in tuition fees policy [ from £9k to £6k ].
Amusing indeed, and probably fair too with the Greens, although the worry must surely be that as they will never get a chance to implement their economic ideas, would it really dissuade someone considering voting for them as a protest only?
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. .
I bet if YouGov had been showing consistent Tory leads in that period and the statement was '10 of the last 18 polls have Tory leads' there would not be a problem with including the incessant YouGovs.
Blimey - Ed’s net rating amongst his own supporters leaves a lot to be desired.
Indeed. I get her's not great, but it's amazing he is apparently not regarded well by enough of his own party that they are underrating their own chances as a result.
I think it's a fair point that if MORI, ICM, and Com Res (phone) were polling weekly, we'd be seeing more Conservative leads each week.
Not sure I get the fuss about first time incumbency bonus. We had a recent marginals poll showing a 4.5% swing Tory to Lab. Presumably that means in seats where there is a first time incumbent there would be a slightly smaller swing than 4.5% and in those where there isn't a first timer the swing will be slightly larger than 4.5% to even things out. Overall, no difference.
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
I happen to agree with Easterross about TNS which part weights its samples to what they did at last year's Euros when turnout was just 36%. That's going to be good for UKIP and bad for CON & LD.
Not sure I get the fuss about first time incumbency bonus. We had a recent marginals poll showing a 4.5% swing Tory to Lab. Presumably that means in seats where there is a first time incumbent there would be a slightly smaller swing than 4.5% and in those where there isn't a first timer the swing will be slightly larger than 4.5% to even things out. Overall, no difference.
You'd need to ask people to think about their specific seat, and preferably name the candidates, to see if there was incumbency effect.
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
No - 5 YGs in 1 week is basically no more useful than any one of them v say Opinium or ICM
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
No - 5 YGs in 1 week is basically no more useful than any one of them v say Opinium or ICM
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
No - 5 YGs in 1 week is basically no more useful than any one of them v say Opinium or ICM
I'm not so sure. Two polls by one pollster is a little more useful than one by another, but not twice as much.
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
No - 5 YGs in 1 week is basically no more useful than any one of them v say Opinium or ICM
I'm not so sure. Two polls by one pollster is a little more useful than one by another, but not twice as much.
Not really because the time frame is so short - the Tuesday poll is basically not gonna register much from the one the day before - unless public opinion starts shifting - and that is not very likely normally except when we get close to the election. we also know that on-line polling tends to favour Labour and telephone polls the Conservatives. the much greater number of on-line polls may thus be magnifying a position that is not all that accurate to begin with.
Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.
A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones. And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?
"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"
Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.
But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?
No it is not, because the height of each of the tall kids is entirely independent of the height of each and every one of the other tall kids (OK, not entirely of siblings, but it is unlikely that 50% of the class are going to be siblings), whereas the bias in each YouGov poll is the same in each of the polls in the same series.
Sunil, another analogy to illustrate what I mean. You have a perfect shot who fires 5 guns, each with its individual random bias on a linear basis. A shoots at -10, B at +1, C at +2, D at +3 and D at +4. If you average each biased gun's result you can calculate the bull's eye at 0 (presuming you have enough randomly biased guns for the law of large numbers to apply). Now if the shooter shoots the A gun 5 times, and he chose to use all five of these results in his averaging technique to find out where the true bull's eye is, he has shot 9 times with an aggregate -40 so he erroneously assesses bull's eye at -4.44 instead of 0. In other words, his average will be biased towards the bias of the most shot gun.
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?
I am 99% certain I am not. The exact percentage used to predict the certainty of an overall Tory majority a few months back.
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?
I am 99% certain I am not. The exact percentage used to predict the certainty of an overall Tory majority a few months back.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head! The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware. Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects. We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!
When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?
Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Say I have a house with and east wing, a central hall and a west wing (OK, I lied it's a mansion) all of equal size. The temperature in the east wing is 18 degrees, 19 degrees in the central hall and 20 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 19 degrees.
Say I meddle with the thermostats such that it is now 16 degrees in the east wing, 21 degrees in the central hall and 23 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 20 degrees.
A scientist says "The house has got warmer". Are you telling me this statement is incorrect because one part of the house is colder?
I expect the "hosts" to struggle. They achieved 162 against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have more to them. If I were a betting man, I'd take 10/11 under 175.5.
Yes, big hitters have been able to punish Malinga et al, but Afghanistan aren't in a position to take advantage. I expect fifty overs (or until all out) of pretty high pressure.
Whilst this may be the first ST YouGov poll to place UKIP on 13% there have been four others in the Sun this year - so not really out of line . Both tonight's polls seem well within moe.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
I agree with you entirely. I actually came to skepticism from an initial acceptance of the hypothesis and a trust in the advocates (which in itself should have been a warning to me). At that point I concentrated on my own areas of expertise - palaeo-environment modelling within the late glacial and post glacial period - and accepted what was being said by those in other related fields.
Then the AGW advocates started claiming that those areas where I really did know something, particularly the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods, either did not exist or were not as warm as we had always contended. Even then I was willing to look at their evidence and adjust my views if the science showed they were right. Unfortunately not only did it not show they were right, but it didn't actually have any basis in scientific analysis at all. They had simply found the warmer periods inconvenient to their hypothesis and so had adjusted the data in a manner unsupported by any evidence or statistical reasoning to make them cooler.
Although those 'adjustments' were backtracked on relatively quickly because so many people attacked them, it gave me cause to doubt a lot of the other claims being made. Hence the reason I have moved to a position of skepticism. Once you stop simply accepting what a the climate modellers say 'because they are scientists' you quite quickly start to see the flaws in their thinking and the lack of strong scientific methodology in their work.
I expect the "hosts" to struggle. They achieved 162 against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have more to them. If I were a betting man, I'd take 10/11 under 175.5.
Yes, big hitters have been able to punish Malinga et al, but Afghanistan aren't in a position to take advantage. I expect fifty overs (or until all out) of pretty high pressure.
Hmm, can't say I've been vindicated so far. But the over/under line is now 187.5 which is too high in my opinion.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox
My book overcovers this via Ed PM bets so I'm not going to add to it but taking 4-9 Con votes, 7-5 Lab Seats can only leave you underwater and 7-5 Lab Seats is itself most likely a bit big...
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%.
We know that;
a) Labour's super-efficient vote:MP ratio in Scotland is likely to collapse, b) Labour is piling up votes in seats it has already won in by-elections, whilst making no progress anywhere else;
Anecdotally, I hear much less willingness to lend NOTA votes to the Lib Dems.
The left consider them to have been traitorous pig-dogs (copyright: someone on here) and have spotted five years of supporting Tory policy, so will not repeat the folly.
Meanwhile, Nigel is saying some things that Ed is incapable of saying, and Essex man (and Kent man) in particular welcomes that.
All that said, I wouldn't bet a penny on a Tory majority.
Labour fighting light ferrets in a sack. Bringing back a washed up adulterer to campaign on a topic no one gives an Aylesbury duck about. No wonder the punters are placing money on the blues.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%.
We know that;
a) Labour's super-efficient vote:MP ratio in Scotland is likely to collapse, b) Labour is piling up votes in seats it has already won in by-elections, whilst making no progress anywhere else;
Anecdotally, I hear much less willingness to lend NOTA votes to the Lib Dems.
The left consider them to have been traitorous pig-dogs (copyright: someone on here) and have spotted five years of supporting Tory policy, so will not repeat the folly.
Meanwhile, Nigel is saying some things that Ed is incapable of saying, and Essex man (and Kent man) in particular welcomes that.
All that said, I wouldn't bet a penny on a Tory majority.
Not one to back outright but not one to leave a gaping great betting hole down either.
I must say I have grave doubts about YOuGov - if they are polling 1000 out of 300000 there must be a lot multiple-pollees and it would seem that they are doing opinion polls of YouGov members and not the UK population. There is no evidence that the two cohorts are similar - if only that for the one you just have to be over 18 and live in the UK and for the second you must be interested enough to join Yougov.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox
I must say I have grave doubts about YOuGov - if they are polling 1000 out of 300000 there must be a lot multiple-pollees and it would seem that they are doing opinion polls of YouGov members and not the UK population. There is no evidence that the two cohorts are similar - if only that for the one you just have to be over 18 and live in the UK and for the second you must be interested enough to join Yougov.
Member for 5 years , over 4500 points, never once asked VI.
People aren't certain about who is more powerful between the two Eds? Unsurprising.
One thing I've liked about this government at least is while there has been talk of Osborne's influence in reshuffles and the like, I've not really seen much in the way of rumours that he and Cameron are not closely aligned still and work well together, to support each other, as Osborne knows he will fall with Cameron.
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox
Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!
If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox
Labour fighting light ferrets in a sack. Bringing back a washed up adulterer to campaign on a topic no one gives an Aylesbury duck about. No wonder the punters are placing money on the blues.
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
People aren't certain about who is more powerful between the two Eds? Unsurprising.
One thing I've liked about this government at least is while there has been talk of Osborne's influence in reshuffles and the like, I've not really seen much in the way of rumours that he and Cameron are not closely aligned still and work well together, to support each other, as Osborne knows he will fall with Cameron.
I don't understand why questions like that don't get 70%+ don't knows. Imagine going out onto the high street and asking people what their thoughts are on the dynamics between Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.
@Jamin2g: Ant and Dec are told Ed Miliband has appointed John Prescott to a key election campaign role. twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/569267520374484992/photo/1
I must say I have grave doubts about YOuGov - if they are polling 1000 out of 300000 there must be a lot multiple-pollees and it would seem that they are doing opinion polls of YouGov members and not the UK population. There is no evidence that the two cohorts are similar - if only that for the one you just have to be over 18 and live in the UK and for the second you must be interested enough to join Yougov.
Member for 5 years , over 4500 points, never once asked VI.
Quite likely some people won't be asked and others asked on numerous occasions. If we assume 240,000 people out of 300,000 will be asked each year ( a gross estimate) i.e. probability of being asked in a year is 80% then 1 in 32 people won't be asked in 5 years = 9000.
I don't understand why questions like that don't get 70%+ don't knows. Imagine going out onto the high street and asking people what their thoughts are on the dynamics between Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.
Yes - it's a general issue about polls that people feel they need to give an opinion on anything they're asked about. That applies especially with online polls, where you're motivated to answer something, anything, to move on and claim your 50p. I'd think the salience of that one for most voters must be microscopic.
Another issue affecting politics less is that regular YouGov respodents learn that the best strategy is to claim you've never heard of most things, e.g. brands of soft drink, since if you admit to knowing half a dozen you'll get six times as many stupid questions about whether you'd be proud to work for the manufacturer and whether you'd recommend it unprompted to a friend.
I sadly don't have time to look at it this evening (I have the morning thread to write)
But I'll have a look tomorrow and give my thoughts tomorrow (though I suspect other PBers will give their thoughts before I do)
Again many thanks for this.
Thanks TSE
Again, please bear with me as this was only really going to be for my own use so the labels etc. may not be very friendly!
The 2010 results are in Columns A to K. I downloaded these and it looks to me as though some of the “region” labels may not be correct – a few SouthWest are down as SouthEast, but that doesn’t really matter.
Cells P2:S19 are the “swings” since 2010, with different entries for England/Wales and for Scotland. E.g. P4 represents the percentage of 2010 LD voters in non-Scottish seats which are not currently held by LD who will vote Con this time. Q4 has the same but in non-Scottish seats which ARE held by the LDs and so on. In W4 I calculate what all this means for the overall GB percentage of 2010 LD voters who intend to vote Con in 2015. I have played around with the inputs to roughly match the details in published polls.
Cells P14:S16 try to take account of the swings to UKIP being lower in Con/Lab marginals than elsewhere. Although they sit in the same columns they have nothing to do with being LD held (clearly as Con/Lab marginals none of them are!). In P14 I put in a majority under which a seat is judged as marginal. P15 is the percentage of 2010 Lab voters turning to UKIP in non-marginal non-Scottish seats, while Q15 is the percentage in marginal seats. Ditto P16 and Q16 for Con voters going UKIP this time. W15 and W16 are the calculated overall Lab to UKIP and Con to UKIP percentages across the whole of GB.
P18:R19 are the percentages of 2010 Lab going Con and Con going Lab. Generally by mucking about with these I can match up the total national vote shares, which are calculated in T27:T34.
W36 shows the Con lead over Lab that results for the whole of the UK.
X26:Y33 show the predicted seat numbers, which include a fudge factor (Cell S21) of Con seats that go UKIP despite the swings not predicting them.
Columns AE to AL show the predicted vote in each seat based on all the inputs.
AA26:AC35 show Scotland alone, while O41:S51 show England alone.
As I say, this is just me playing around but I would be grateful for any suggestions. It takes a little bit of suck it and see but playing with the inputs allows you to match up pretty much any national poll with the flexibility to account for LD incumbency, the differences in Scotland and in Con/Lab marginals.
If this is of any use to anyone, I will feel I have given a little bit back to PBers who have helped me in the past with their insight!
Comments
My conclusion is that 9-4 Con votes, Lab seats is a shocker and
Lab votes Con seats 2%
Lab votes Lab seats 30%
Con votes Con seats 56.1%
Con votes; Lab Seats 11.9%.
Is the correct probability matrix based off bookies' current prices.
Excluding all the five YouGovs to leave the six non-YouGov changes that to.... 1.5%
(And including the YouGovs only changes that to.... 1.5%!!!)
2 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/mid-dorset-north-poole/
3 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/chippenham/
4 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/berwick-upon-tweed/
5 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/solihull/
6 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/st-austell-newquay/
7 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/taunton-deane/
8 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/somerton-frome/
9 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/wells/
10 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/north-devon/
11 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/torbay/
12 http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/north-cornwall/
Pick of the bunch.
OTOH Considering some of these MPs personal ratings 6-10 Con Gains at 11-2 was a nice price.
Just this weekend we've had let's screw anyone with a pension (ie voters) to fund students and now the return of Prescott.
What's next? Brown coming back to front labour's economic strategy? Jackie Smith attacking the "bedroom tax"?
Just how badly do these guys want to lose?
On UNS, the Conservatives would lose 52 English seats to Labour. But, we have solid electoral evidence that first time incumbents outperform.
& Orkney !
& Hallam ! Oh wait
I can't find those odds now so someone probably agreed with you.
Excluding all the five YouGovs to leave the six non-YouGov changes that to.... 1.5%
(And including the YouGovs only changes that to.... 1.5%!!!)
“@Telegraph:At least 20 dead as US freezes under Siberian Express http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11426842/At-least-20-dead-as-US-freezes-under-Siberian-Express.html … ”damned global warming again
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
CON 33%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 6%. 13% is the joint lowest for UKIP this year though
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
The average temperature of the house is 19 degrees.
Say I meddle with the thermostats such that it is now 16 degrees in the east wing, 21 degrees in the central hall and 23 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 20 degrees.
A scientist says "The house has got warmer". Are you telling me this statement is incorrect because one part of the house is colder?
I expect the "hosts" to struggle. They achieved 162 against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have more to them. If I were a betting man, I'd take 10/11 under 175.5.
Yes, big hitters have been able to punish Malinga et al, but Afghanistan aren't in a position to take advantage. I expect fifty overs (or until all out) of pretty high pressure.
Nor has the frequency of tornados:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp?MR=1
The trouble with this debate is that both sides are guilty of hearing a 'fact' and latching onto it regardless of the evidence.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
@ZoraSuleman: Labour MP Austin Mitchell: 'Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby' ... http://t.co/3G2anhL1PQ
Then the AGW advocates started claiming that those areas where I really did know something, particularly the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods, either did not exist or were not as warm as we had always contended. Even then I was willing to look at their evidence and adjust my views if the science showed they were right. Unfortunately not only did it not show they were right, but it didn't actually have any basis in scientific analysis at all. They had simply found the warmer periods inconvenient to their hypothesis and so had adjusted the data in a manner unsupported by any evidence or statistical reasoning to make them cooler.
Although those 'adjustments' were backtracked on relatively quickly because so many people attacked them, it gave me cause to doubt a lot of the other claims being made. Hence the reason I have moved to a position of skepticism. Once you stop simply accepting what a the climate modellers say 'because they are scientists' you quite quickly start to see the flaws in their thinking and the lack of strong scientific methodology in their work.
THE SCAREMONGERS
The pro-EU lobby peddle claims that jobs will
be lost if we leave the EU, when the reality is
the opposite of this
http://www.globalbritain.co.uk/sites/default/files/GB Report The Scaremongers.pdf
In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.
Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.
I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.
Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.
I'd like to have a look at this model
& Welcome
I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?
"Balls deep in trouble"
Knives out for ‘Ed Balls the bungler’
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/u4OpML2kL5
https://www.dropbox.com/
*Tory Lane, the porn star
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963297/Porn-star-Tory-Lane-arrested-LAX-battery-police-officer-public-intoxication.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus
My book overcovers this via Ed PM bets so I'm not going to add to it but taking 4-9 Con votes, 7-5 Lab Seats can only leave you underwater and 7-5 Lab Seats is itself most likely a bit big...
a) Labour's super-efficient vote:MP ratio in Scotland is likely to collapse,
b) Labour is piling up votes in seats it has already won in by-elections, whilst making no progress anywhere else;
Anecdotally, I hear much less willingness to lend NOTA votes to the Lib Dems.
The left consider them to have been traitorous pig-dogs (copyright: someone on here) and have spotted five years of supporting Tory policy, so will not repeat the folly.
Meanwhile, Nigel is saying some things that Ed is incapable of saying, and Essex man (and Kent man) in particular welcomes that.
All that said, I wouldn't bet a penny on a Tory majority.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83sxf8225s7h3mm/2015 General Election Possibilities Latest.xlsx?dl=0
I sadly don't have time to look at it this evening (I have the morning thread to write)
But I'll have a look tomorrow and give my thoughts tomorrow (though I suspect other PBers will give their thoughts before I do)
Again many thanks for this.
One thing I've liked about this government at least is while there has been talk of Osborne's influence in reshuffles and the like, I've not really seen much in the way of rumours that he and Cameron are not closely aligned still and work well together, to support each other, as Osborne knows he will fall with Cameron.
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/569267520374484992/photo/1
A bit self indulgent methinks!!!
Another issue affecting politics less is that regular YouGov respodents learn that the best strategy is to claim you've never heard of most things, e.g. brands of soft drink, since if you admit to knowing half a dozen you'll get six times as many stupid questions about whether you'd be proud to work for the manufacturer and whether you'd recommend it unprompted to a friend.
Does this work, please? (I haven't shared using Dropbox before)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83sxf8225s7h3mm/2015 General Election Possibilities Latest.xlsx?dl=0
Yes it does work.
I sadly don't have time to look at it this evening (I have the morning thread to write)
But I'll have a look tomorrow and give my thoughts tomorrow (though I suspect other PBers will give their thoughts before I do)
Again many thanks for this.
Thanks TSE
Again, please bear with me as this was only really going to be for my own use so the labels etc. may not be very friendly!
The 2010 results are in Columns A to K. I downloaded these and it looks to me as though some of the “region” labels may not be correct – a few SouthWest are down as SouthEast, but that doesn’t really matter.
Cells P2:S19 are the “swings” since 2010, with different entries for England/Wales and for Scotland. E.g. P4 represents the percentage of 2010 LD voters in non-Scottish seats which are not currently held by LD who will vote Con this time. Q4 has the same but in non-Scottish seats which ARE held by the LDs and so on. In W4 I calculate what all this means for the overall GB percentage of 2010 LD voters who intend to vote Con in 2015. I have played around with the inputs to roughly match the details in published polls.
Cells P14:S16 try to take account of the swings to UKIP being lower in Con/Lab marginals than elsewhere. Although they sit in the same columns they have nothing to do with being LD held (clearly as Con/Lab marginals none of them are!). In P14 I put in a majority under which a seat is judged as marginal. P15 is the percentage of 2010 Lab voters turning to UKIP in non-marginal non-Scottish seats, while Q15 is the percentage in marginal seats. Ditto P16 and Q16 for Con voters going UKIP this time. W15 and W16 are the calculated overall Lab to UKIP and Con to UKIP percentages across the whole of GB.
P18:R19 are the percentages of 2010 Lab going Con and Con going Lab. Generally by mucking about with these I can match up the total national vote shares, which are calculated in T27:T34.
W36 shows the Con lead over Lab that results for the whole of the UK.
X26:Y33 show the predicted seat numbers, which include a fudge factor (Cell S21) of Con seats that go UKIP despite the swings not predicting them.
Columns AE to AL show the predicted vote in each seat based on all the inputs.
AA26:AC35 show Scotland alone, while O41:S51 show England alone.
As I say, this is just me playing around but I would be grateful for any suggestions. It takes a little bit of suck it and see but playing with the inputs allows you to match up pretty much any national poll with the flexibility to account for LD incumbency, the differences in Scotland and in Con/Lab marginals.
If this is of any use to anyone, I will feel I have given a little bit back to PBers who have helped me in the past with their insight!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4djbtovu64zto8g/Gen Election Calculator Notes.docx?dl=0