Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The voting intentions of those who watched Thursday’s progr

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited March 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The voting intentions of those who watched Thursday’s programme and those that didn’t


Nearly 20% of the YouGov respondents watched Thursday’s programme, whereas around only 5% of the public actually watched the programme so this might be what may be somewhat over amplifying Ed’s performance and the Labour lead.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Well quite.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited March 2015
    183 for NZ, ouch.

    I don't get why NZ put McCullum in at number 2. He is their most important bat and they were against a proper side. They should have held him back till 4th bat and let the openers take the shine off. It;s a World Cup Final and they played it like a county match.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    49 hours
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FPT:

    In today's YouGov - leader ratings (net) vs decided how to vote?'definitely/nearer time':

    Cameron: -3 / +8
    Miliband: -24 / -41

    Those who have yet to make up their minds don't appear to be big Ed fans......
  • noisywinternoisywinter Posts: 249
    Not much movement on betfair in response to this poll. I've been laying the Tories more about 1.52 most seats.

    Getting to quite a substantial position now, -2.7k on Tories, + 4.7k on Labour. I think of it as a hedge against my equity investments should Labour win.

    Just a depressing outcome for the UK though. Still if thats what people vote for thats what they deserve!
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?
  • noisywinternoisywinter Posts: 249
    By the way, if others would like to join me in laying the tories that would be super cool, I could do with hedging at some point!
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all

    Something's amiss - where's the subtle pop music reference? :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.

    Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.

    As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.

    My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.

    For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
    Morning Dire,

    Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
    What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
    Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
    It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.

    So you believe, as a socialist, which is clearly what you are, that Scotland should be given redistributed money from England?
    Excessively chucklesome for a Sunday morning.

    I haven't been labelled as a "socialist" on PB since some wit thought my view that Michael Howard stalked Folkestone churches for grave robbing showed I was being briefed by Millbank to post for the Labour party. :smile:
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Oh! The amazingly amusing thought that 48 SNP MP's could be sitting in Westminster for 5 years and be totally ignored by all the others. Just like the muppets sitting behind our beloved FM in Holyrood.

    Can't see it happening though, but if the polls keep going in Labour's favour, then the SNP vote in Scotland may be vulnerable.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited March 2015

    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
    Ms Vance:

    Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.

    Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.

    As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.

    My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.

    For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
    Morning Dire,

    Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
    What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
    Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
    It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.

    So you believe, as a socialist, which is clearly what you are, that Scotland should be given redistributed money from England?
    Excessively chucklesome for a Sunday morning.

    I haven't been labelled as a "socialist" on PB since some wit thought my view that Michael Howard stalked Folkestone churches for grave robbing showed I was being briefed by Millbank to post for the Labour party. :smile:
    You can't have it both ways. Either, as a Scottish person (which some claim you are) you are subsidised or you are not. You need to decide which it is.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
    Ms Vance:

    Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
    Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.

    If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_scotland_contribute_more_in_taxes_than_rest_of_uk-34755
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited March 2015
    On topic it's not necessarily that the panel is skewed towards people who actually watched it - respondants may have a looser definition of "watched the program" than the one used in viewership figures, eg they saw a clip of it later, or heard about it and imagined they watched it, or like to think they're the kind of person who would have watched the program.

    Maybe Ashcroft or someone could do a Panetta-Burns-style placebo poll and see how many people claim to have watched a debate that didn't actually happen.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.

    Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.

    As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.

    My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.

    For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
    Morning Dire,

    Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
    What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
    Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
    It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.

    So you believe, as a socialist, which is clearly what you are, that Scotland should be given redistributed money from England?
    Excessively chucklesome for a Sunday morning.

    I haven't been labelled as a "socialist" on PB since some wit thought my view that Michael Howard stalked Folkestone churches for grave robbing showed I was being briefed by Millbank to post for the Labour party. :smile:
    You can't have it both ways. Either, as a Scottish person (which some claim you are) you are subsidised or you are not. You need to decide which it is.
    Historically all three major UK parties have implemented the Barnett formula that subsidizes Scotland and the SNP government accept the cash. I haven't heard Salmond or Sturgeon suggest, on principle, they should reject this money because Scotland subsidizes the rest of the UK as you, without evidence, falsely claim.



  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    So we can expect a 10 point Labour lead in next Sunday's YouGov then. Ed has certainly hit the ground running.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    49 hours

    Latest BJESUS 48.5 hrs
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    LAB most seats into 2.66 from 3.05 in last 2 hrs
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    Also, note the LibDem 4 percent among debate viewers. That's what happens to those who don't take part.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Looks like Ferrari faster than Mercedes at the moment.

    Vettel at 2.88 may be decent bet
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    In my opinion I think this poll reveals rather more about Yougov and their panellists than they intended to reveal, and certainly rather more about yougov and their panellists than who is likely to win the next election.

    I'm not saying Yougov is infested with Labourites, more that their panellists are neds who (a) can be bothered to waste their evenings filling out online surveys and (b) can be bothered to waste their evenings watching shows like last Thursdays.

    I hardly think it is a surprise that the sort of people who spend their evenings filling out online surveys and watching politics shows also warm to Ed Miliband as that is exactly the sort of person that Ed Miliband comes over as.

    Coming up next, survey of heavy smokers impressed with Kenneth Clarke interview?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Alonso is a donkey to lose Ferrari drive just as they come good.

    Stuck in one of slowest cars in race and now retired
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Incidentally thank you to the fellow PBers who described me as a friendly Highlander the other day. I do my best and am even known to try and be pleasant to Roger and other champagne socialists.

    I hope Malcolm, Dair or any of our NAT chums enjoyed their wee rally at the SECC yesterday. I was interested to hear the FM setting out her stall to become Prime Minister, given that the English voters apparently love her and consider her the best politician in the UK.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,636

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    To be fair, I to they led in exactly one poll.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915

    In my opinion I think this poll reveals rather more about Yougov and their panellists than they intended to reveal, and certainly rather more about yougov and their panellists than who is likely to win the next election.

    I'm not saying Yougov is infested with Labourites, more that their panellists are neds who (a) can be bothered to waste their evenings filling out online surveys and (b) can be bothered to waste their evenings watching shows like last Thursdays.

    I hardly think it is a surprise that the sort of people who spend their evenings filling out online surveys and watching politics shows also warm to Ed Miliband as that is exactly the sort of person that Ed Miliband comes over as.

    Coming up next, survey of heavy smokers impressed with Kenneth Clarke interview?

    Paul I am on YouGov's panel though wasn't asked for a contribution for this poll. I only do it because over the course of a year I complete enough surveys (across a huge range of topics) to earn £100-150. For every 5000 points gained I get a cheque for £50. A typical survey will give between 25 and 150 points depending on length.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    Aussies 2-1. Finch gone!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    Bloody Socialists
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    I assume Marquee Mark is locked in a dark room with a wet towel over his head limbering up for the Grand Prix. Good luck to all those with bets on it this morning.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Off-topic:

    I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.

    Time for a cull....

    :bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Wow Hamilton now 4.00 in running.

    Could be good as Vettel has to run hard tyres yet which look much slower


  • I'm not saying Yougov is infested with Labourites, more that their panellists are neds who (a) can be bothered to waste their evenings filling out online surveys and (b) can be bothered to waste their evenings watching shows like last Thursdays.

    I hardly think it is a surprise that the sort of people who spend their evenings filling out online surveys and watching politics shows also warm to Ed Miliband as that is exactly the sort of person that Ed Miliband comes over as.

    The average YouGov survey takes me around 10 minutes to complete. I get asked to do one maybe once per week (and rarely do they have any political questions). So that's 10 minutes per week I spend on them - and it's not even wasted time as I do them as I'm running my bath when I get home from work.

    Nobody is sat hunched over their computers taking YouGov survey's all evening... though a worrying number might be sat hunched over their computers reading PB.com all day...

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Do you think they have an inflatable rat & will it be seen in Dartmouth Park?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sinister-conservative-dirty-tricks-campaign-5420141

    And no, I don't condone the action - but as yea sow....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Easterross

    Good Morning "Friendly Highlander" :smile:

    Any thoughts on the absence from the field of the SNP that you have reported in your seat?

    Are they in complete thrall to the noble Viscount and his magnificent beard?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Hamilton into 2,88
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited March 2015

    In my opinion I think this poll reveals rather more about Yougov and their panellists than they intended to reveal, and certainly rather more about yougov and their panellists than who is likely to win the next election.

    I'm not saying Yougov is infested with Labourites, more that their panellists are neds who (a) can be bothered to waste their evenings filling out online surveys and (b) can be bothered to waste their evenings watching shows like last Thursdays.

    I hardly think it is a surprise that the sort of people who spend their evenings filling out online surveys and watching politics shows also warm to Ed Miliband as that is exactly the sort of person that Ed Miliband comes over as.

    Coming up next, survey of heavy smokers impressed with Kenneth Clarke interview?

    Paul I am on YouGov's panel though wasn't asked for a contribution for this poll. I only do it because over the course of a year I complete enough surveys (across a huge range of topics) to earn £100-150. For every 5000 points gained I get a cheque for £50. A typical survey will give between 25 and 150 points depending on length.
    So basically it would appear you are happy to do it because it interests you and/or as a means of earning a small amount of money in return for a good many hours doing surveys. This means one of :

    (a) You enjoy spending your time doing such surveys

    (b) You have enough spare time to spend a reasonable chunk of it doing such surveys

    (c) You are motivated to spend a good few hours doing this for the relatively small rewards on offer (ie you need the money)

    I don't think that makes your a typical voter.

    (a) would indicate a much higher than average interest in current affairs

    (b) would suggest you are either single, unemployed, under employed or a pensioner.

    (c) would suggest you are either unemployed, underemployed, in a low wage job or a pensioner.

    All of which are subsamples of the population that would be likely to indentify more with Miliband (although a lot of pensioners will vote Tory).

    Years ago I joined their panel for a while but just didn't have the patience for regular mind numbing surveys on various topics so left before I had a political survey.

    My gut feeling is that they have done well to date by weighting based on various factors such as how their panel previously voted, however the major change in the voting patterns in this election across so many areas will make life very difficult for them if they are starting from a panel that represents certain types of people more heavily. Certainly if they do get this election right they will have had a touch of genius, but I also recall the Scottish referendum.
  • Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Hamilton on best tyres at end of race could be decisive
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited March 2015
    Changes in Ed's approval ratings since last week (among voting groups):

    Con +2
    Lab +15
    LD +31
    Ukip +2
    Lab10 +17
    Men +8
    Women +13

    Changes in Dave's approval since last week

    Con -1
    Lab +12
    LD +13
    Ukip +9
    C10 +6
    Men +7
    Women -1

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ao7qcdoada/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200315.pdf

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2ymqcmfu9d/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-280315.pdf
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Millsy said:

    Changes in Ed's approval ratings since last week (among voting groups):

    Con +2
    Lab +15
    LD +31
    Ukip +2
    Lab10 +17
    Men +8
    Women +13

    Changes in Dave's approval since last week

    Con -1
    Lab +12
    LD +13
    Ukip +9
    C10 +6
    Men +7
    Women -1

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ao7qcdoada/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200315.pdf

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2ymqcmfu9d/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-280315.pdf

    What is LAB10 and C10

    Last election?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    DavidL said:

    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?

    Panels don't need to be representative of the population at large, just of 2/3rds of the population that votes. It's still not perfect, but when you take this into consideration, it's better than it looks
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Off-topic:

    I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.

    Time for a cull....

    :bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:

    Are you still in the Netherlands? UK law doesn't apply over there, no need to pay them anything. The worst they could get you for is infringing copyright for the programs you actually watched, but it's hard to imagine them trying to recover that for less than the cost of doing it when they've got all these unfortunate people still living in the UK to clog up the courts chasing after.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Cameron says he wants to win back disaffected Tories.

    Thing is he needed to so something 2 years before the election rather than 5 weeks.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11501248/David-Cameron-My-plan-to-win-back-disgruntled-Tories.html
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900



    What is LAB10 and C10

    Last election?

    Yes
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    English voters apparently love her and consider her the best politician in the UK.

    Who do you think is a better party leader - (David Cameron/Ed Miliband/Nick Clegg) or Nicola Sturgeon:

    Scotland/England:

    Cameron: 34 / 43
    Sturgeon: 52 / 18

    Miliband: 32 / 29
    Sturgeon: 53 / 24

    Clegg: 22 / 26
    Sturgeon: 58 / 31
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    lies lies and damn statistics you mean, real numbers will show fiscal surplus but then you will want the Little Englander fiddled numbers no doubt
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    DavidL said:

    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?

    A five-fold difference in a completely crucial variable puts them straight into voodoo poll country.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Game over in GP SV to win
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    The other thing that may be happening here, apart from a wonky YouGov sample (we'll know as soon as we get some MOAR POLLING) is just a general rallying-to-the-flag effect. The mere fact of having the debate between the Tories' guy and Labour's guy frames the election as a binary choice between Con and Lab, and it's Lab who seem to have the most recently-defected defectors. It also makes strong partisans want to say, "Yes, I saw the debates and my guy wiped the floor with your guy", hence more people reporting seeing the debates than actually did.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Cameron says he wants to win back disaffected Tories.

    Thing is he needed to so something 2 years before the election rather than 5 weeks.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11501248/David-Cameron-My-plan-to-win-back-disgruntled-Tories.html

    Surprised so called 'gay marriage' hasn't been the cornerstone of Dave's re-election bid.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?

    A five-fold difference in a completely crucial variable puts them straight into voodoo poll country.
    Nah, they're faithfully polling a nation of bullshitters.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?

    Not very was my immediate conclusion...

    I wonder if someone rather better at stats than me could figure out the "deadening" impact on volatility that it will have.

    I'm assuming, as per @NickPalmer, that committed politicos have already made up their mind while normal people are just beginning to figure out there's an election on. This might explain the uncanny stability of the poll sequence
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    I can't imagine Ed will get such a boost from the next debate when he has to share the platform with 4 other leftie leaders, but it just goes to show that it was a bit of a gamble on the Tory party's part to make Ed's character and suitability such a big element of the election campaign when there are plenty of people who could change their mind about him
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Edin_Rokz said:

    Oh! The amazingly amusing thought that 48 SNP MP's could be sitting in Westminster for 5 years and be totally ignored by all the others. Just like the muppets sitting behind our beloved FM in Holyrood.

    Can't see it happening though, but if the polls keep going in Labour's favour, then the SNP vote in Scotland may be vulnerable.

    Ha Ha Ha , Labour dreaming will not help. We could send a lorry load of pigs and they would do more than Labour MP's have ever done for Scotland.
    As for Holyrood , LOL have you ever looked at the dullards they have there. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The merde is about to be flushed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    In my opinion I think this poll reveals rather more about Yougov and their panellists than they intended to reveal, and certainly rather more about yougov and their panellists than who is likely to win the next election.

    I'm not saying Yougov is infested with Labourites, more that their panellists are neds who (a) can be bothered to waste their evenings filling out online surveys and (b) can be bothered to waste their evenings watching shows like last Thursdays.

    I hardly think it is a surprise that the sort of people who spend their evenings filling out online surveys and watching politics shows also warm to Ed Miliband as that is exactly the sort of person that Ed Miliband comes over as.

    Coming up next, survey of heavy smokers impressed with Kenneth Clarke interview?

    Paul I am on YouGov's panel though wasn't asked for a contribution for this poll. I only do it because over the course of a year I complete enough surveys (across a huge range of topics) to earn £100-150. For every 5000 points gained I get a cheque for £50. A typical survey will give between 25 and 150 points depending on length.
    What's your hourly rate, and can I hire you at that price to do something rather more productive?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
    Ms Vance:

    Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
    Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.

    If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_scotland_contribute_more_in_taxes_than_rest_of_uk-34755
    Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth and the "UK" as the Little Englander hanging on your coattails puts it got £220 billion off us and borrowed loads more and make u spay for it.
    Not like you.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Why on earth was Hamilton put on the hard tyre? That was the race.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Dair said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.

    Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.

    As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.

    My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.

    For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
    Morning Dire,

    Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
    What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
    Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
    It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.

    So you believe, as a socialist, which is clearly what you are, that Scotland should be given redistributed money from England?
    Excessively chucklesome for a Sunday morning.

    I haven't been labelled as a "socialist" on PB since some wit thought my view that Michael Howard stalked Folkestone churches for grave robbing showed I was being briefed by Millbank to post for the Labour party. :smile:
    You can't have it both ways. Either, as a Scottish person (which some claim you are) you are subsidised or you are not. You need to decide which it is.
    Historically all three major UK parties have implemented the Barnett formula that subsidizes Scotland and the SNP government accept the cash. I haven't heard Salmond or Sturgeon suggest, on principle, they should reject this money because Scotland subsidizes the rest of the UK as you, without evidence, falsely claim.



    LOL, Hoist by your own petard as fellow Tory Carlotta admits Scotland does indeed subsidise the UK. No doubt you will be Scottish again soon.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-putins-army-of-prokremlin-bloggers-10138893.html
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    FalseFlag said:

    Cameron says he wants to win back disaffected Tories.

    Thing is he needed to so something 2 years before the election rather than 5 weeks.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11501248/David-Cameron-My-plan-to-win-back-disgruntled-Tories.html

    Surprised so called 'gay marriage' hasn't been the cornerstone of Dave's re-election bid.
    Ed helpfully reminded viewers that it is one of Cam's two best achievements in office.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Tories on 34 in South thanks to "Ed Bounce", having been on 47 the day before thanks to "Tory surge".

    Give it a couple of days and polling normality will be resumed with YG.

    Lest we forget, Opinium (definite voters) = Con 36 Lab 31.8
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    Far away countries of which we know little. No one votes on the basis of that stuff.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Millsy said:

    I can't imagine Ed will get such a boost from the next debate when he has to share the platform with 4 other leftie leaders, but it just goes to show that it was a bit of a gamble on the Tory party's part to make Ed's character and suitability such a big element of the election campaign when there are plenty of people who could change their mind about him

    I suspect that a lot of that shift in support is revulsion at Paxman going personal. I thought "North London geek" was a complete inappropriate line to take.

    I'd have rather he argued that Miliband is a hypocrite and a liar and therefore unfit to be PM

  • Paul I am on YouGov's panel though wasn't asked for a contribution for this poll. I only do it because over the course of a year I complete enough surveys (across a huge range of topics) to earn £100-150. For every 5000 points gained I get a cheque for £50. A typical survey will give between 25 and 150 points depending on length.

    It takes me over 2 years to earn £50 with YouGov. I must be too ordinary. :)

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    If 20% of the Yougov respondents watched a program that less than 4% of the population watched just how representative is their panel?

    A five-fold difference in a completely crucial variable puts them straight into voodoo poll country.
    If it was badly out of whack with our random phone based polls I'd tend to agree with you, but the fact that their polls are consistently within MOE of other organisations suggests it's not all that bad.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Charles said:

    Millsy said:

    I can't imagine Ed will get such a boost from the next debate when he has to share the platform with 4 other leftie leaders, but it just goes to show that it was a bit of a gamble on the Tory party's part to make Ed's character and suitability such a big element of the election campaign when there are plenty of people who could change their mind about him

    I suspect that a lot of that shift in support is revulsion at Paxman going personal. I thought "North London geek" was a complete inappropriate line to take.

    I'd have rather he argued that Miliband is a hypocrite and a liar and therefore unfit to be PM
    And innumerate. Don't forget innumerate. But yes.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    Would that be when Ed stood up to the man he described as "the leader of the free world"?

    The Middle East is a bad place, with nothing but bad choices avaliable. Its descent into barbarism seems inevitable. The only civilised place is Israel. I am glad I saw Egypt before Islamic State take over there and destroy the antiquities.

    There were no good options in Syria, Yemen or Libya. Just very bad ones, I do not blame our leaders for trying to get a civilised regime in these places, but it was always going to be a long shot.

    I suspect the time will come when we have to shoot the rabid dog of Islamism. It will require some serious force and we will need our NATO allies to do so.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Ishmael_X said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    Far away countries of which we know little. No one votes on the basis of that stuff.
    Anecdotally I know people who do, and we know it motivates LD switchers.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    Charles said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-putins-army-of-prokremlin-bloggers-10138893.html
    The fly in that ointment is that they are trolling domestic Russian newspapers (assuming the whole story isn't an invention)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    Incidentally thank you to the fellow PBers who described me as a friendly Highlander the other day. I do my best and am even known to try and be pleasant to Roger and other champagne socialists.

    I hope Malcolm, Dair or any of our NAT chums enjoyed their wee rally at the SECC yesterday. I was interested to hear the FM setting out her stall to become Prime Minister, given that the English voters apparently love her and consider her the best politician in the UK.

    Easterross, thanks for best wishes but I would not be seen dead at a political conference. I was out walking in Sundrum estate with grand children , it was very pleasant indeed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Charles said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-putins-army-of-prokremlin-bloggers-10138893.html
    Don't be too harsh. We all need to make a crust one way or another.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    Would that be when Ed stood up to the man he described as "the leader of the free world"?

    The Middle East is a bad place, with nothing but bad choices avaliable. Its descent into barbarism seems inevitable. The only civilised place is Israel. I am glad I saw Egypt before Islamic State take over there and destroy the antiquities.

    There were no good options in Syria, Yemen or Libya. Just very bad ones, I do not blame our leaders for trying to get a civilised regime in these places, but it was always going to be a long shot.

    I suspect the time will come when we have to shoot the rabid dog of Islamism. It will require some serious force and we will need our NATO allies to do so.
    And us to go in there, plant the British flag, put a guy with a feathery hat in chargge and make clear we will be running the place for ever and we are the masters now.

    none of this regime change to enable the decent folk there to implement a liberal democracy malarky any more.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    Tories on 34 in South thanks to "Ed Bounce", having been on 47 the day before thanks to "Tory surge".

    Give it a couple of days and polling normality will be resumed with YG.

    Lest we forget, Opinium (definite voters) = Con 36 Lab 31.8

    Complacent
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    malcolmg said:

    Incidentally thank you to the fellow PBers who described me as a friendly Highlander the other day. I do my best and am even known to try and be pleasant to Roger and other champagne socialists.

    I hope Malcolm, Dair or any of our NAT chums enjoyed their wee rally at the SECC yesterday. I was interested to hear the FM setting out her stall to become Prime Minister, given that the English voters apparently love her and consider her the best politician in the UK.

    Easterross, thanks for best wishes but I would not be seen dead at a political conference. I was out walking in Sundrum estate with grand children , it was very pleasant indeed.
    Make the most of it before Salmonds land reform proposals abolish it and replace it with smallholdings and council flats in the castle.
  • In relation to the main point of this poll, isn't it crucially important to know who people who watched the debate supported before the debate?

    There is a huge danger of getting the direction of causation wrong here. It is perfectly credible to think Tory supporters were simply less likely to bother to watch an event that their leader deliberately played down, and where their leader was a relatively known quantity against the relative void of an opposition leader.

    Perhaps more clearly, someone further down the thread suggested the Lib Dems' relatively poorer performance in the poll of debate viewers was due to their absence meaning they lost support among viewers. Yet I'd suggest it's much more likely that a lot of the more solid Lib Dems simply chose not to watch the event precisely because the Lib Dems weren't there - in much the same way as Arsenal fans not being so likely to watch a Man City v Chelsea match as supporters of those teams.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
    Ms Vance:

    Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
    Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.

    If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_scotland_contribute_more_in_taxes_than_rest_of_uk-34755
    Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
    No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Curious speech by Cameron yesterday. I thought he came across really badly when laying into Miliband, but much better when talking about the 7 day NHS. That together with the apparent shift in the polls towards Ed seems to me to show that they'll be much better off going positive than negative. If the Tory campaign is perceived as being largely about people in Salmond masks harassing Ed, voters are going to be turned off very quickly.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Charles said:

    Millsy said:

    I can't imagine Ed will get such a boost from the next debate when he has to share the platform with 4 other leftie leaders, but it just goes to show that it was a bit of a gamble on the Tory party's part to make Ed's character and suitability such a big element of the election campaign when there are plenty of people who could change their mind about him

    I suspect that a lot of that shift in support is revulsion at Paxman going personal. I thought "North London geek" was a complete inappropriate line to take.

    I'd have rather he argued that Miliband is a hypocrite and a liar and therefore unfit to be PM
    Paxman is a balloon and was extremely nasty, Ed should have asked him if he wanted to repeat that in the car park after the interview.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Charles said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-putins-army-of-prokremlin-bloggers-10138893.html
    Radio Free Europe is a US govt funded organisation. They recently dismissed Andrei Babitsky for not toeing the party line. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-moor-has-done-his-duty/

    Perhaps you are surprised governments engage in propaganda but it has always been apparent. I am not surprised governments have had to respond to the Hasbara phenomenon.

    This is certainly a speech Ed could copy. Perhaps a bit too patriotic though.
    https://youtu.be/gnHPmcUgfRU
    You can select captions if you don't understand German.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
    It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.

    I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
    Probably overdone.

    I have taken some profit Laid Tories at 1.5 backed at 1.6.

    Next couple of polls important i reckon back to neck and neck prior to easter
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    DavidL said:

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
    It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.

    I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
    But what you are saying is that the penny has dropped after a single poll, which I struggle with.

    I do agree though that it is a good thing for the Tories, I have them to win a minority and I am not unhappy with that bet.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited March 2015
    FalseFlag

    "Surprised so called 'gay marriage' hasn't been the cornerstone of Dave's re-election bid."

    Not as stupid a suggestion as you were intending it to be. It took Cameron and Hilton quite a few years to prove that hippydom didn't totally pass the Tories by who could be caring sharing people not ashamed of their feminine side like normal people....

    So what happens six weeks before the election? Straight from Maggies playbook up pops Mr 80's Tory boy himself. Just in time to remind those who'd ALMOST forgotten what it was about Tories that turned them off.......... and with a personal endorsement from Cammo himself

    As Beverley Turner in the Telegrah so well described this second coming....

    "The only female presence in this sorry tale comes from blurry profile shots through rainy windows of Clarkson’s girlfriend Phillipa Sage arriving to comfort her chastened lover........He was a slobbering, greedy mutt who’d happily have licked his own balls to raise eyebrows on The One Show"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Millsy said:

    I can't imagine Ed will get such a boost from the next debate when he has to share the platform with 4 other leftie leaders, but it just goes to show that it was a bit of a gamble on the Tory party's part to make Ed's character and suitability such a big element of the election campaign when there are plenty of people who could change their mind about him

    I suspect that a lot of that shift in support is revulsion at Paxman going personal. I thought "North London geek" was a complete inappropriate line to take.

    I'd have rather he argued that Miliband is a hypocrite and a liar and therefore unfit to be PM
    Paxman is a balloon and was extremely nasty, Ed should have asked him if he wanted to repeat that in the car park after the interview.
    His anger in response did him no harm at all. His "off mike" response at the end showed anger too, I thought.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    FalseFlag said:

    Maybe it is also the effect of media that reported on the TV show? The broadcasting media have more influence on news than newspapers and the BBC dominate 60%+ of broadcasted news.

    That said Cameron did not do a superb job in his Paxman interview and coupled with his own goal over two terms and the Bercow stupidity, the Leadership of the Conservatives are handing the advantage over to Labour.

    No one paid much attention to Thursday night let alone this Bercow chap they have never heard of.

    Cameron's odious neo con foreign policy has always been his soft underbelly. Ed will do well to continue to harp on about Syria, Libya and the Ukraine. Will stop a lot of people, including myself, from voting Conservative.
    Would that be when Ed stood up to the man he described as "the leader of the free world"?

    The Middle East is a bad place, with nothing but bad choices avaliable. Its descent into barbarism seems inevitable. The only civilised place is Israel. I am glad I saw Egypt before Islamic State take over there and destroy the antiquities.

    There were no good options in Syria, Yemen or Libya. Just very bad ones, I do not blame our leaders for trying to get a civilised regime in these places, but it was always going to be a long shot.

    I suspect the time will come when we have to shoot the rabid dog of Islamism. It will require some serious force and we will need our NATO allies to do so.
    And us to go in there, plant the British flag, put a guy with a feathery hat in chargge and make clear we will be running the place for ever and we are the masters now.

    none of this regime change to enable the decent folk there to implement a liberal democracy malarky any more.
    We should continue to support the democrats in these countries, partly out of principle, but partly because like all revolutions the Islamist one will eat itself. If the Salafist way was popular then it would not have to be enforced by violence. It is like Communism in the 20th Century and will collapse. Soft power by the internet, and hard power in containment are needed. But not re-colonisation.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Dear Dear , how desperate are Labour
    Judging by stock levels, labour have only sold 1 "economic foundation" mug, vs 5 for NHS, and 47 immigration ones https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-1-mug-a-strong-economic-foundation-548/ … and unbelievably it is real

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420

    Off-topic:

    I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.

    Time for a cull....

    :bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:

    Are you still in the Netherlands?
    Please do keep up Gaijan....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    Incidentally thank you to the fellow PBers who described me as a friendly Highlander the other day. I do my best and am even known to try and be pleasant to Roger and other champagne socialists.

    I hope Malcolm, Dair or any of our NAT chums enjoyed their wee rally at the SECC yesterday. I was interested to hear the FM setting out her stall to become Prime Minister, given that the English voters apparently love her and consider her the best politician in the UK.

    Easterross, thanks for best wishes but I would not be seen dead at a political conference. I was out walking in Sundrum estate with grand children , it was very pleasant indeed.
    Make the most of it before Salmonds land reform proposals abolish it and replace it with smallholdings and council flats in the castle.
    Don't be a silly boy. The castle is already flats and very nice they are too. My daughter lives in part of what was the old stables block. Land reform should have been done long ago, it is a scandal that a handful of tw**s own most of the country , given it was mainly stolen in the past.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    @Malcolmg Imagine my dismay to discover that the Cost of Living Contract at £35 is out of stock.
  • @martinboon: So a political leader gets a poll boost after a good performance in a tv debate. I've seen that somewhere before.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Off-topic:

    I have just been warned by Al-Beeb that I need to have a TV-licence to watch a Grand-Prix on the t'Internet. The fact that myself and my Serbian princess are paying for two licences shows what a wankfest the state-propaganda (Gruaniad/Labour) system is.

    Time for a cull....

    :bunch-of-[MODERATED]s:

    Are you still in the Netherlands?
    Please do keep up Gaijan....
    My bad, for technical reasons I only see your posts on mobile browsers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    DavidL said:

    Morning all and I see SKY going overboard on the YouGov poll. No mention of the Opinium poll.

    OGH is in full orgasm mode on Twitter predicting "the Tories are fcuked". Suggesting there is a 6% swing in England on the strength of one poll is nonsense.

    An interesting thought, Ed has now raised his game in the eyes of the watching public and his groupies in the Islington chatterati. Can he keep it up?

    As TSE has reported, at this stage in 2010, OGH, Mark Senior and others were getting carried away with LibDem gains resulting in 80-120 seats. The LibDems even led the polls for a while. We all know how that ended!

    It will be interesting to see the effect of this Thursday's 7-way rammy on the viewing, voting public.

    As a semi-pro punter but not a political one I simply cannot understand the euphoria and change in betting intentions over one poll, looks like the way to the poorhouse to me.
    It is not the single poll, it is the penny finally dropping that the assumed drift to the Tories may not happen and there is nothing inevitable about it. Quite the reverse in fact.

    I speculated unreasonably early (thanks to the cricket) on the previous thread that there had to come a point when the complacency bubble burst. Could be a good thing for the Tories in the long run. Bit like that poll in the referendum.
    But what you are saying is that the penny has dropped after a single poll, which I struggle with.

    I do agree though that it is a good thing for the Tories, I have them to win a minority and I am not unhappy with that bet.
    It is counter narrative. And highlights the point that evidence for the narrative is almost non existent. I doubt anyone believes Labour is 4 points ahead but according to the plan the Tories were supposed to be by now.

    Cameron has a reputation for being at his best when his back is against the wall and cruising when it isn't. This would be a good time to start living up to that reputation.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited March 2015
    Is it not likely that 20% of the population saw the "highlights" on the news and regard themselves as having seen the interviews? A bit like people who have seen MOTD regard themselves as having seen the match?

    I agree with Charles. Paxman was very rude to call Miliband a North London Geek to his face, he should have concentrated on policy. Miliband was condemning nearly everything his party did in 97 to 2010, when he was part of it. We needed to know what he would do differently.

    It reminded me of a Khymer Rouge leader being interviewed in the early eighties. Asked what he regretted about his time in power, he replied "we should have moved against our enemies more quickly".



  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    Dair said:

    Looks as though all historic posts under disqUS have been lost. Cannae find the EIU evidence that showed Scotland's fiscal deficit (1980 thro' 2008?) despite "oil, whiskey and whinging".

    Can anyone find the link to the t'Economist article please...?

    It's been tallied. Since 1980 Scotland paid £222bn to the UK it didn't get back. The UK also borrowed around £1200bn in debt Scotland did not need and asked Scotland to pay debt interest.
    Link?
    Ms Vance:

    Note that the subject is "UK" not "England". A lesson learned me-thinks....
    Since Mr Dair is so Coy I've done a bit of digging.

    If we make Scotland retrospectively Independent to 1980 then the figures add up ('geographical share of oil'), but then they wouldn't have had Mrs Thatcher either - so where are the assumptions to end?

    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_scotland_contribute_more_in_taxes_than_rest_of_uk-34755
    Is that your way of saying he was telling the truth
    No - it was an illustration of the fatuity of the assumption upon which his claim is based.....
    Backpeddling now, you inadvertantly printed the truth. massive robbery took place and now the pygmy's down south wail about inequality whilst their pockets are stuffed with our money, you could not make it up.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    malcolmg said:

    Edin_Rokz said:

    Oh! The amazingly amusing thought that 48 SNP MP's could be sitting in Westminster for 5 years and be totally ignored by all the others. Just like the muppets sitting behind our beloved FM in Holyrood.

    Can't see it happening though, but if the polls keep going in Labour's favour, then the SNP vote in Scotland may be vulnerable.

    Ha Ha Ha , Labour dreaming will not help. We could send a lorry load of pigs and they would do more than Labour MP's have ever done for Scotland.
    As for Holyrood , LOL have you ever looked at the dullards they have there. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The merde is about to be flushed.
    As the SNP cast the Tay Pearls before the swine of the referendum electorate, and were spurned. What price a copy of Scotland's Future now. And as for the work of the SNP in Holyrood, for the / another referendum, much. Anything else, it's all somebody else's fault.
This discussion has been closed.