I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKPR had UKIP moving up from 14% to 15% at the end of last week (admittedly, that includes the TNS figure which I don't much rate) It's easy to look at one poll in isolation, but one needs to look in the round.
The four polls since Anthony Wells updated his numbers have UKIP on an average 13.5%.
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKPR has UKIP moving up from 14% to 15% at the end of last week (admittedly, that includes the TNS figure which I don't much rate) It's easy to look at one poll in isolation, but one needs to look in the round.
I was looking at a variety of polls.
ICM had the big two up last week, and UKIP down to a lower figure, ditto Ipsos-Mori
YouGov on Saturday had UKIP on their joint lowest for a while
Good afternoon all and I see the good Lord is having a TNS moment this afternoon. Given that ComRes is claiming its poll tonight is interesting, it will probably be as underwhelming as so many have been in recent weeks.
I wonder how Gordon Brown is getting on persuading Tescos not to shut the main supermarket in his constituency? They can always go back to shopping at the Coop.
The Populus score this morning was in the middle of their recent range. This score is way outside what Lord Ashcroft normally finds for UKIP, which has been a 14-17% range so far this year.
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
Peak-Kipper in ELBOW was their 17.7% score during w/e 30th November.
Balls never learns does he? And still he comes back for another pounding. I'd have thought he'd learn from the debacle he suffered post the EU payment stuff.
The really frightening LibDem finding is that two thirds of their rump support say they may yet vote differently (vs 40ish for the other parties).
Yup. This was always the risk of the Lib Dems' triangulation-on-acid election strategy of being equidistant between the two big parties. Even leaving aside the trust issues and Clegg issues, their core message at the moment is just so diluted and weak that it's surely impossible for anyone to be enthusiastic about it.
The Lib Dems essentially face all of Labour's current problems magnified by about 10.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015
Nice timing....another distraction for the Tories from trying to get their message out there.
That is actually what I think is happening now, none of these scandals I think are hitting the Tories hard from A&E waiting lists, to HSBC, to lobbying, but what it is doing is stopping Tories being able to get on the front foot and push home their more jobs than ever, low inflation, deficit down (don't mention the original predictions) etc.
As the Tories are the ones that need to get 4-5% ahead, it is all to Labour's advantage that the past 3-4 weeks have been dominated by Tories having to talk about stuff that makes them look bad rather than being able to talk about their perceived strengths.
Certainly worth considering in terms of every bodies betting positions for the GE outcome.
Does anyone know if the UKIP documentary is being repeated? All I read about on twitter this morning was some Kipper woman who feels uncomfortable around black people. She seemed to be digging a hole for herself faster than Malcolm Rifkind can say "self employed".
Wonder who the new Tory PPC for Kensington and Chelsea will be?
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible. Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
Does anyone know if the UKIP documentary is being repeated? All I read about on twitter this morning was some Kipper woman who feels uncomfortable around black people. She seemed to be digging a hole for herself faster than Malcolm Rifkind can say "self employed".
Wonder who the new Tory PPC for Kensington and Chelsea will be?
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross ranks #632 out of 632 seats in Great Britain for non-white population.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The really frightening LibDem finding is that two thirds of their rump support say they may yet vote differently (vs 40ish for the other parties).
Yup. This was always the risk of the Lib Dems' triangulation-on-acid election strategy of being equidistant between the two big parties. Even leaving aside the trust issues and Clegg issues, their core message at the moment is just so diluted and weak that it's surely impossible for anyone to be enthusiastic about it.
The Lib Dems essentially face all of Labour's current problems magnified by about 10.
The really frightening LibDem finding is that two thirds of their rump support say they may yet vote differently (vs 40ish for the other parties).
It is not really frightening at all . If the Lib Dems lose all the 2/3rds of flaky rump support they will lose 4% of the total vote . If Labour and Conservatives lose all their 40% ish flaky support they will lose 28% of the total vote between them .
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015
You'd think such a politically charged trial wouldn't commence two weeks before the election! I guess the judiciary is independent, and this was the most convenient time to have it, but still...
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible. Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
So, despite several newspapers emphasising that the Chelsea fan in question was not involved in the racial abuse, you continue to smear him.
I presume Adrian "Golly" Chiles will be along to tell us all that "well you know it was only a few minutes of abuse and I get abuse with I walk around Manchester just because of who I am..." and "maybe the other fans were provoking it" by having a club in the same city?
The New Statesman have republished a piece from a defeated Labour MP in the wake of the 1983 debacle. Some lessons here for both main parties; Labour's 1980/81 experience is precisely why this is not a "good election to lose".
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015
This alleged perjury took place whilst he was serving in Number 10.
Just what Dave wants during the tail end of the campaign
Cue the nightly news containing nice updates from said trial, complete with video / stills of Cameron and Coulson together just after report on the day of the campaign trial with each leader....not good for Cameron / Tories at all.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The really frightening LibDem finding is that two thirds of their rump support say they may yet vote differently (vs 40ish for the other parties).
Yup. This was always the risk of the Lib Dems' triangulation-on-acid election strategy of being equidistant between the two big parties. Even leaving aside the trust issues and Clegg issues, their core message at the moment is just so diluted and weak that it's surely impossible for anyone to be enthusiastic about it.
The Lib Dems essentially face all of Labour's current problems magnified by about 10.
The really frightening LibDem finding is that two thirds of their rump support say they may yet vote differently (vs 40ish for the other parties).
It is not really frightening at all . If the Lib Dems lose all the 2/3rds of flaky rump support they will lose 4% of the total vote . If Labour and Conservatives lose all their 40% ish flaky support they will lose 28% of the total vote between them .
LOL nice try Mark! 4% off 7% takes the Lib-Dems to 3%.
The New Statesman have republished a piece from a defeated Labour MP in the wake of the 1983 debacle. Some lessons here for both main parties; Labour's 1980/81 experience is precisely why this is not a "good election to lose".
Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.
I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
Half would not be enough.
My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.
I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The polling companies should just give up on Scotland and Wales, as they have mostly done with Northern Ireland, and produce England-only opinion polls. They can then poll the other bits of the UK in their own right, rather than as a tiny subsample of a GB poll.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The polling companies should just give up on Scotland and Wales, as they have mostly done with Northern Ireland, and produce England-only opinion polls. They can then poll the other bits of the UK in their own right, rather than as a tiny subsample of a GB poll.
It would indeed be best if England and Wales were polled separately from Scotland.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
The New Statesman have republished a piece from a defeated Labour MP in the wake of the 1983 debacle. Some lessons here for both main parties; Labour's 1980/81 experience is precisely why this is not a "good election to lose".
This really isn't a good election to lose anyway. As we start 2015, the economic conditions that the incoming government will inherit are about as benign as could reasonably be hoped for - good growth, inflation firmly under control, employment surging, wage growth starting to appear. Yes, there's a big deficit that needs dealing with, but that should be manageable if growth continues on its current path.
Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.
I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
Half would not be enough.
My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.
I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22 Con 13 Lab 10 LD 5
Clearly wrong, there aren't even thirteen Tories in Scotland (I could only wish there were that many)
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible. Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
So, despite several newspapers emphasising that the Chelsea fan in question was not involved in the racial abuse, you continue to smear him.
You can emphasise him how you like but he, Farage's claim and Farage's local party have not been invisible.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The polling companies should just give up on Scotland and Wales, as they have mostly done with Northern Ireland, and produce England-only opinion polls. They can then poll the other bits of the UK in their own right, rather than as a tiny subsample of a GB poll.
That's not going to be of much use for the headlines the next day. It's pretty safe to exclude NI because the 13 MPs (that actually turn up) are not likely to have much impact on the election.
Losing 40 Welsh and 59 Scottish seats will make the England only poll pretty much meaningless for indicating the next government, which would seem to be the Newspapers point in paying for the polls. I'd also argue that Wales is not dissimilar to anywhere in England with a higher Labour lead over Tory. Plaid are small enough to not undermine the result.
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22 Con 13 Lab 10 LD 5
Clearly wrong, there aren't even thirteen Tories in Scotland (I could only wish there were that many)
115 Tory councillors were elected in Scotland in 2012...
The New Statesman have republished a piece from a defeated Labour MP in the wake of the 1983 debacle. Some lessons here for both main parties; Labour's 1980/81 experience is precisely why this is not a "good election to lose".
This really isn't a good election to lose anyway. As we start 2015, the economic conditions that the incoming government will inherit are about as benign as could reasonably be hoped for - good growth, inflation firmly under control, employment surging, wage growth starting to appear. Yes, there's a big deficit that needs dealing with, but that should be manageable if growth continues on its current path.
I believe the preferred Tory term is a "golden inheritance".
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22 Con 13 Lab 10 LD 5
Clearly wrong, there aren't even thirteen Tories in Scotland (I could only wish there were that many)
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22 Con 13 Lab 10 LD 5
Clearly wrong, there aren't even thirteen Tories in Scotland (I could only wish there were that many)
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate England only Lab Lead 6% The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
As NickP says upthread, the polls are not weighted to be representative within each area. So necessarily if disproportionately many AB's with 3 cars are polled in Scotland then the AB's with 3 cars in the South East get downweighted too.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
The problem is that the companies are trying to run National polls with two completely segmented portions. I can understand why the companies insist on continuing with this as it is cheaper than having to run a full (or at least 500 sample) Scottish poll to get a proper national picture.
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
The method is fine for the major parties as Scotland & Wales are relatively small proportions of the country, and MOE will tend to overwhelm any effect.
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22 Con 13 Lab 10 LD 5
Clearly wrong, there aren't even thirteen Tories in Scotland (I could only wish there were that many)
115 Tory councillors were elected in Scotland in 2012...
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP had a lot of media coverage thanks to the by-elections in the autumn of 2012 - and went up in the polls. The same happened in advance of the local elections in 2013, the Euro elections in 2014 and following the defections of Carswell and Reckless in autumn 2014.
Thus it's not surprising that they should gently subside in the polls over the last couple of months when they have less media coverage. The questions then are: how much media coverage will UKIP receive in the general election campaign, and what effect will that have on their level of support?
Given the OFCOM rules designating them as a major party, the track record of the Liberal Democrats benefiting from more media time as a result in the campaigns for previous general elections and UKIPs own record of benefiting from increased media coverage and it seems entirely reasonable to me to expect that UKIPs support will rise as the general election campaign proper kicks off.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015
This alleged perjury took place whilst he was serving in Number 10.
Just what Dave wants during the tail end of the campaign
I wonder whether the first day of the trial will see an adjournment until after the election?
Why would the Scottish legal system concern itself with that ?
There's bound to be a lot of chatter and speculation within the media with a general election campaign going on...
Presumably the judge won't want the trial taking place at a time when outside issues could affect the outcome?
The judge wouldn't get to say unless the Fiscal or the Defender asked for it. I am not certain of Coulson's current relationship and how he feels about being left to hang out to dry. I don't see any compelling reason for Frank Mulholland to request a Sist either, even assuming he is as Independent as he is supposed to be.
I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.
So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.
Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.
UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible. Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
So, despite several newspapers emphasising that the Chelsea fan in question was not involved in the racial abuse, you continue to smear him.
You can emphasise him how you like but he, Farage's claim and Farage's local party have not been invisible.
And what is so dreadful about Farage claiming an allowance that he's entitled to?
Just for "fun", if we "re-weight" Ashcroft's Scotland figures to the most recent Scotland-only poll, Labour gain 5 respondents and the Tories lose 5 in Scotland.
Similar we can deduce 5 Welsh Tories and 7 Welsh Labour respondents, out of 25 Welsh respondents overall. Re-weighting to the most recent Wales-only poll the Tories gain one respondent to 6 and Labour gain 2 to 9.
Overall the Tories are 4 "over-represented" in {Wales and Scotland} and Labour are 7 "under-represented".
So to "correct" that we reverse the representation in the England data, making the Tories 153+4 = 157 and Labour 179-7 = 172. That changes the non-adjusted England numbers from C32 L38 to C33 L37 (though the "gap" is only actually 3 due to rounding).
Not very scientific, obviously, but it goes to show that "England-only" data should be discounted, especially if the Scottish subsample looks odd.
Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.
Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........
One shouldn't pay too much attention to the sub-samples. A Labour lead of 4% is quite consistent with an average of 0-1% (as are leads in the other direction).
Low pay commision says raise the minium wage by 3%.
Well above inflation.
Any chance the coalition would go for this in their last budget?
Like scrapping the whole charade and leaving wages to the market?
Cameron and Clegg still have a touching faith in the ability of quangos to do a useful job, I suppose that it is one way they can exert some patronage like Walpole or Henry Pelham.
Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.
Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.
..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.
This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.
Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.
This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.
But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.
So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.
Comments
The four polls since Anthony Wells updated his numbers have UKIP on an average 13.5%.
Shame The Rant didn't go with ICM. We could do with a second ICM poll a month, IMO.
ICM had the big two up last week, and UKIP down to a lower figure, ditto Ipsos-Mori
YouGov on Saturday had UKIP on their joint lowest for a while
I wonder how Gordon Brown is getting on persuading Tescos not to shut the main supermarket in his constituency? They can always go back to shopping at the Coop.
They going through a quiet patch, but are a very long way from meltdown.
So these will be additional polls to what we normally get.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.com/2015/02/purples-reined-current-polling-and.html
The Populus score this morning was in the middle of their recent range. This score is way outside what Lord Ashcroft normally finds for UKIP, which has been a 14-17% range so far this year.
The Lib Dems essentially face all of Labour's current problems magnified by about 10.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 6m6 minutes ago
Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015
Lab UK lead 4% - that could be accurate
England only Lab Lead 6%
The implication is Cons are doing better than Lab in Scotland and Wales. Even with a Lab meltdown North and West, that is counter intuitive.
That is actually what I think is happening now, none of these scandals I think are hitting the Tories hard from A&E waiting lists, to HSBC, to lobbying, but what it is doing is stopping Tories being able to get on the front foot and push home their more jobs than ever, low inflation, deficit down (don't mention the original predictions) etc.
As the Tories are the ones that need to get 4-5% ahead, it is all to Labour's advantage that the past 3-4 weeks have been dominated by Tories having to talk about stuff that makes them look bad rather than being able to talk about their perceived strengths.
Certainly worth considering in terms of every bodies betting positions for the GE outcome.
Wonder who the new Tory PPC for Kensington and Chelsea will be?
Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
Hence you get a domino effect between regions (or between the sexes, for that matter) whereby if you get an unusual result one way in one subsample it will probably be balanced by another "outlier" elsewhere.
To get a proper England-only picture you need to weight just the England data to England demographics (i.e. an England-only poll).
Just what Dave wants during the tail end of the campaign
I presume Adrian "Golly" Chiles will be along to tell us all that "well you know it was only a few minutes of abuse and I get abuse with I walk around Manchester just because of who I am..." and "maybe the other fans were provoking it" by having a club in the same city?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/christopher-price-reflections-landslide
But it is likely to be the source of all the fluctuations being seen in these polls and until they make such a change, the national polls will b fundamentally flawed.
"Breaking: Andy Coulson will stand trial in Scotland on charges of perjury on 21 April 2015"
Anyone who doesn't find that funny hasn't got a sense of humour (AC excepted!)
My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.
I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
While not wanting to get all "Tapestry" on here......are you sure you haven't been cloned by aliens over the past month?
But it's worth noting that the "7% Tory lead over Labour" in Scotland actually comes from 51 weighted respondents splitting thus:
SNP 22
Con 13
Lab 10
LD 5
Kerry McCarthy - Labour MP
@KerryMP
Posted at
tweets: The Mogg makes a grand defence of tax avoidance, says "the most respectable families" do it. Osborne squirms, says he's "not going there".
Losing 40 Welsh and 59 Scottish seats will make the England only poll pretty much meaningless for indicating the next government, which would seem to be the Newspapers point in paying for the polls. I'd also argue that Wales is not dissimilar to anywhere in England with a higher Labour lead over Tory. Plaid are small enough to not undermine the result.
Presumably the judge won't want the trial taking place at a time when outside issues could affect the outcome?
I think we'll look back on them in six months and say, Angus Reid.
Well above inflation.
Thus it's not surprising that they should gently subside in the polls over the last couple of months when they have less media coverage. The questions then are: how much media coverage will UKIP receive in the general election campaign, and what effect will that have on their level of support?
Given the OFCOM rules designating them as a major party, the track record of the Liberal Democrats benefiting from more media time as a result in the campaigns for previous general elections and UKIPs own record of benefiting from increased media coverage and it seems entirely reasonable to me to expect that UKIPs support will rise as the general election campaign proper kicks off.
Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........
Similar we can deduce 5 Welsh Tories and 7 Welsh Labour respondents, out of 25 Welsh respondents overall. Re-weighting to the most recent Wales-only poll the Tories gain one respondent to 6 and Labour gain 2 to 9.
Overall the Tories are 4 "over-represented" in {Wales and Scotland} and Labour are 7 "under-represented".
So to "correct" that we reverse the representation in the England data, making the Tories 153+4 = 157 and Labour 179-7 = 172. That changes the non-adjusted England numbers from C32 L38 to C33 L37 (though the "gap" is only actually 3 due to rounding).
Not very scientific, obviously, but it goes to show that "England-only" data should be discounted, especially if the Scottish subsample looks odd.
AND - of course with the rising tax allowance they get to keep more of this than workers who take home more.
So happy days all round - unless you are Mike Ashley.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
Wouldn't mind a ringside seat for that one. Any chance they could both lose?
Roger probably wasn't a fan of that war tho..
Balls on the other hand, had a complete mare of an afternoon.
Cameron and Clegg still have a touching faith in the ability of quangos to do a useful job, I suppose that it is one way they can exert some patronage like Walpole or Henry Pelham.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
Never saw it myself, but the transcript clearly shows that Ozzie was talking his usual load of bull droppings.
All LARGER polls are a complete joke
Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.
Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
"Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html
..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.
This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.
Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.
This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.
But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.
So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.