And the all important/utterly meaningless (delete to taste) Scottish subsample is SNP 44%, Lab 25%, Tories 17%, LDs 8%, Green & Kippers 3%.
LDs hotting up, the Willie Rennie effect?
If we are going to use subsamples then my take would be the SE&E of England (the biggest subsample), UKIP second 11 points behind the Tories now, Farage might have hit the regional spot.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
So are other terms like Messiah etc but that doesn't stop people either. We don't live in a theology so people can break the second commandment if they wish.
Of course - and I wasn't proposing to behead @Innocent_Abroad (just yet, anyway )
I was just pointing out that Cameron has not claimed the title and that many people would find it surprising that it is applied to a politician.
Dinosaur alert ! Dinosaur alert ! This election is the first where workers on the ground count for next to nothing......this is the age of facebook and twitter. I personally doubt they ever had much efect, nobs knocking on you door spouting b@@llckcs
Holiday polling is notoriously unreliable. There's a reason why YouGov didn't poll on Easter Sunday/Monday and why Ipsos Mori and ICM are waiting until this weekend to start polling.
If the phone polls show a similar story, then I will share your depression.
Today's YouGov:
Weighted sample: 18-24 (7 year range): 223 = 223/7 = 32 people per year 60+ (21 year range *): 565 = 565/21 = 27 people per year
OK, there may be a few more people in each year in the younger age groups but even allowing for that the poll is assuming approx. the same "turnout" for each age group - ie turnout of the whole population, not just registered voters.
Yet we know half of young people aren't even registered.
And look how few 18-24s YouGov actually found - only 126 and they had to then weight them up to 223.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
What was the change in the methodology? I thought it was odd to alter it at this stage in the game myself.
A cynic would say the tories are doing too well too soon. Nobody's going to buy that special election pullout featuring Ed Miliband's inside leg measurement in that case.
It has to be neck and neck right until the end to keep people reading and watching - and then a sensation at the end so that people tune in to the aftermath.
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
Sample from the net, heavily overloaded with 18-35.
Their front page is eminently readable, with all the data I need for ELBOW (same for Opinium). Populus also good. Ipsos MORI and Survation are OK, save for font size!
Can't say the same for ICM and Ashcroft, where you need to get a calculator out to get sample sizes for each party. Also, YouGov tends not to give Green sample size, or total voting sample size excluding Don't Knows/Refused.
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
It was the no longer weighting to 2010 Voter ID that struck out of for me.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
Of course the only way you can begin to assess whether the change to YouGov weighting asumptions are correclty tracking voting intention is to cross reference the results with other pollsters.
First test TNS - also shows slight softening of Tory share relative to Labour.
Their front page is eminently readable, with all the data I need for ELBOW (same for Opinium). Populus also good. Survation is OK, save for font size!
Can't say the same for ICM and Ashcroft, where you need to get a calculator out to get sample sizes for each party. Also, YouGov tends not to give Green sample size, or total voting sample size excluding Don't Knows/Refused.
I think it's dreadful, Sunil.
Dozens of pages and nowhere near as concise as it should be.
YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).
This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. There will be still be some random sample variation from poll to poll - it can never be eliminated completely - but it will mean any substantial change in the polls will be down to individual people changing their minds (or making their minds ups) since we interviewed them in February.
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
It was the no longer weighting to 2010 Voter ID that struck out of for me.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
See my post below.
Just go back to basics and think big picture.
Is it remotely conceivable that the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s (a 7 year range) will be 40% of the total number of votes cast by people over 60 (a 21 year range)?
I'm sorry but I cannot see how this can possibly be the case.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).
This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. There will be still be some random sample variation from poll to poll - it can never be eliminated completely - but it will mean any substantial change in the polls will be down to individual people changing their minds (or making their minds ups) since we interviewed them in February.
Bearing in mind the amount of expenses UKIP get from the EC, it's quite appropriate.
Could UKIP survive without EU money?
Preferable to the bungs with strings attached from dodgy donors that the main parties rely on.
What do you think UKIP's millionaire backers are expecting in return for their massive donations?
UKIP's paymasters, the EU elite, are getting exactly what they want from UKIP: the knackering of any prospect of an EU referendum. UKIP are campaigning against there being one and if they let Miliband in will assist the election of someone who has actively stated there will not be one.
Someone on here predicted that Miliband might offer one as a rabbit out of the hat during the campaign. I don't see that as likely at all but if he offered one and then welshed on it he'd likely gain quite nicely.
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
That has always been the case. A majority of people always prefer instant pleasure and deferred pain, and prefer emotion to calculation. That isn't something to celebrate.
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
With friends like Tim Montgomorie, who......
He can't still be bitter about not getting that job. How long's it been, 5 years? 10?
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
It was the no longer weighting to 2010 Voter ID that struck out of for me.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
Lets wait a little before you go all "unskewed polls" like a Republican in a presidential election. So far only Yougov and TNS have shown a substantial improvement on Labour's position, while 3 other pollsters have not shown much change yet.
''It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!''
You and a stack of other cleverer-than-thou left backers
I'm pretty confident that the polls and the markets are not going to reconcile before election day.
Agreed. The markets aren't following the polls, they are following the money. A year out the money followed the polls, but now people like us are being overwhelmed by the ordinary punters having a go. They tend to pile on the favorite and the Tory punters tend to have deeper pockets anyway.
There is almost nothing which could cause a notable shift in odds back towards Labour before polling day*. Those of us wanting to back them don't get the security of being able to cash-out for a profit. We either hold our nerve until election night or we don't place the bets.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).
This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. There will be still be some random sample variation from poll to poll - it can never be eliminated completely - but it will mean any substantial change in the polls will be down to individual people changing their minds (or making their minds ups) since we interviewed them in February.
Trying to "un-skew" the polls by counting unweighted numbers strikes me as pretty futile. The weighting's generally there for a reason.
What I would be interested in is whether or not there's an observer effect going on here - by re-polling people again and again are they more or less likely to "change their mind"?
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).
I wonder about the wisdom of this.
It's ten years on. The world is more internet savvy, and so is orchestrated politicisation.
I really don't like the Yougov methodology change.
Given that many of the people polled are dyed in the wool supporters of one or the other main party, its simply a 'keep everybody' in the game methodology.
These guys want to sell polls. They aren't objective.
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
It was the no longer weighting to 2010 Voter ID that struck out of for me.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
See my post below.
Just go back to basics and think big picture.
Is it remotely conceivable that the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s (a 7 year range) will be 40% of the total number of votes cast by people over 60 (a 21 year range)?
I'm sorry but I cannot see how this can possibly be the case.
John Langley, who is standing as a councillor in the Stockwood constituency in the coming city council elections, is known in adult film circles as Johnny Rockard.
I don't think much of the profession of porn stars, but contrasted to politics it is reasonably honest. (G&S)
Now I am stuck imagining how G(ilbert) & S(ullivan) would have written about the profession of porn stars.
I really don't like the Yougov methodology change.
Given that many of the people polled are dyed in the wool supporters of one or the other main party, its simply a 'keep everybody' in the game methodology.
These guys want to sell polls. They aren't objective.
If they want to sell polls for the next 28 years, not just 28 days, then they need to be as accurate as possible. Remember the pollsters use opinion polls as the shop-window for their main business: market research. If they lose their reputation on the election then they lose their clients afterwards.
Just had a lunchtime walk along the prom. Water temperature is just under 9C and air temperature is 13C with no wind. Yet people are swimming in the sea in normal swim attire (not in wet suits). Do they have no feeling?
By the same definition then the last TNS poll should have shown the Tories 6.5% ahead of Labour, equally problematic. There is the danger of Tories sliding into "unskewed polls" territory in the last weeks of the GE.
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
With friends like Tim Montgomorie, who......
He can't still be bitter about not getting that job. How long's it been, 5 years? 10?
''It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!''
You and a stack of other cleverer-than-thou left backers
I'm pretty confident that the polls and the markets are not going to reconcile before election day.
There will presumably be a mega steward's inquiry after the election by most of the pollsters into how they got it so wrong.
Re Tories and policies - surely the absence of policy waving is the policy in itself. They are campaigning mainly on their record. It's what they deliver in government (sound money and recovery) versus what Labour delivers (mayhem and chaos). Why fog the message by joining in Labour's stupid pork auction?
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).
This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. There will be still be some random sample variation from poll to poll - it can never be eliminated completely - but it will mean any substantial change in the polls will be down to individual people changing their minds (or making their minds ups) since we interviewed them in February.
Trying to "un-skew" the polls by counting unweighted numbers strikes me as pretty futile. The weighting's generally there for a reason.
What I would be interested in is whether or not there's an observer effect going on here - by re-polling people again and again are they more or less likely to "change their mind"?
I agree, weighted numbers are always the best, is why I said, when the first few YouGovs with Tory leads really weren't Tory leads as Lab led on the unweighted basis.
My point was, if we we're comparing on a like for like basis, this week's YouGov using last week's methodology would probably have the Tories ahead.
By the same definition then the last TNS poll should have shown the Tories 6.5% ahead of Labour, equally problematic. There is the danger of Tories sliding into "unskewed polls" territory in the last weeks of the GE.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
No: it's the term that John the Baptist used to refer to Jesus and, as the Agnus Dei ("behold the Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world") is used in the Eucharistic Prayer
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
Oh come on. We all know what UKIP's for.
They're a market niche that a handful of individuals have chosen to occupy because it's there.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
I struggle to get excited about it, it cost £595m this year, which is neither here nor their in government spending terms, only a little more than we spent in the "quality" bit of engineering, the SA80
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
So you're going to vote L/dem or Green. UKIP backs a strong defence of Britain the ONLY PARTY that does. All the others would like to see us surrendering to the next international bully that appears (anything for a quiet life), and you can bet your bottom dollar that one will arise.
Which will mean in reality, nothing quiet and no life.
Oh, and can I also say, I've tried to 'get' David Coburn, and I'm sure he's a very nice gentleman with his heart in the right place, but he just comes over as a sort of basement dwelling bad version of Nigel, made up of all the left over bits, and always getting it wrong when he attempts Farageisms. If you had to create someone worse to represent UKIP in Scotland (not an easy sell at the best of times), you'd struggle.
Will there be another methodology change in the last week where they ask whether people are registered to vote and then bingo 18 to 24s go right back down in the weighted sample?
Sorry to be a fuss but I want an answer to my question:
Are psephological experts really expecting the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s to be 40% of the total number of votes cast by over 60s?
If they are fine. But I would like to see the calculation. Because it seems to me that even the most basic Primary School numeracy skills would show that this cannot possibly be right.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
Oh come on. We all know what UKIP's for.
They're a market niche that a handful of individuals have chosen to occupy because it's there.
Everything that exists does so because it occupies a market niche.
Will there be another methodology change in the last week where they ask whether people are registered to vote and then bingo 18 to 24s go right back down in the weighted sample?
Sorry to be a fuss but I want an answer to my question:
Are psephological experts really expecting the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s to be 40% of the total number of votes cast by over 60s?
If they are fine. But I would like to see the calculation. Because it seems to me that even the most basic Primary School numeracy skills would show that this cannot possibly be right.
I think the next methodological change will be from next week, when they ask people if they have already voted, and those voters will not form part of the sample.
Will there be another methodology change in the last week where they ask whether people are registered to vote and then bingo 18 to 24s go right back down in the weighted sample?
Sorry to be a fuss but I want an answer to my question:
Are psephological experts really expecting the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s to be 40% of the total number of votes cast by over 60s?
If they are fine. But I would like to see the calculation. Because it seems to me that even the most basic Primary School numeracy skills would show that this cannot possibly be right.
I think the next methodological change will be from next week, when they ask people if they have already voted, and those voters will not form part of the sample.
Actually you should not ask a voter if he has already voted in a VI question. If you exclude postal voters then you are excluding ACTUAL voters, and if you include them you are kind of breaking rules (I think)
Oh, and can I also say, I've tried to 'get' David Coburn, and I'm sure he's a very nice gentleman with his heart in the right place, but he just comes over as a sort of basement dwelling bad version of Nigel, made up of all the left over bits, and always getting it wrong when he attempts Farageisms. If you had to create someone worse to represent UKIP in Scotland (not an easy sell at the best of times), you'd struggle.
I'm all for keeping our nuclear deterrent. I wish the world didn't have them, but we do and in an international game of MAD - I want both our place on the Security Council and our own nukes updated.
The world is becoming unstable again - it's not as simple as the old Cold War anymore. And given all our Londistan issues - frankly I'm pleased to hear we're getting 4 new subs et al.
A better ratio between top brass and troops would be good too.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
I laid Tory most seats @ 1.52 as soon as YouGov gave Labour a 2 point lead on Tuesday night. It would be nice if the market might acknowledge this week's polling!
Looking at it, people are adjusting for YouGov's methodological change.
The interesting thing from both YouGovs this week, that the Tories lead on the unweighted samples.
I think if they had stuck with their previous methodology, the Tories would have been ahead in both YouGovs
The biggest change is that they now use certainty to vote weighting, as yougov explained that should have favoured the tories since older people are more certain to vote, however they found out that was not the case in practice.
It was the no longer weighting to 2010 Voter ID that struck out of for me.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
That, and instead they are only polling members of their panel who answered surveys in January and February, so as to weight to people's responses at that time. I think this means their polling panel for their polls is now roughly the size of the electorate for one constituency.
Will there be another methodology change in the last week where they ask whether people are registered to vote and then bingo 18 to 24s go right back down in the weighted sample?
Sorry to be a fuss but I want an answer to my question:
Are psephological experts really expecting the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s to be 40% of the total number of votes cast by over 60s?
If they are fine. But I would like to see the calculation. Because it seems to me that even the most basic Primary School numeracy skills would show that this cannot possibly be right.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
So you're going to vote L/dem or Green. UKIP backs a strong defence of Britain the ONLY PARTY that does. All the others would like to see us surrendering to the next international bully that appears (anything for a quiet life), and you can bet your bottom dollar that one will arise.
Which will mean in reality, nothing quiet and no life.
In my opinion, we're already fully surrendered to the biggest bully in the playground. Only when we recognise that fact, and calmly and diplomatically take steps toward a defence policy that is based on neutrality unless vital national interests are at stake (our national interests, not someone elses), and a strong, real defence, will we be on the right track. All those billions should be spent on conventional forces - those are the real deterrent to foreign invasion.
I shall have to consider whether I vote at all I suppose.
Tim Montgomerie hits the nail on the head: If voters have a choice between an individualist right and a big-government left, the latter will prove more popular
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
That has always been the case. A majority of people always prefer instant pleasure and deferred pain, and prefer emotion to calculation. That isn't something to celebrate.
There was an interesting item about the psychology of political campaigns / voting patterns on radio 4 yesterday, with evidence from many countries. Basic message was that assuming people listen to arguments and vote according to policy preferences is dead wrong. It's much more visceral and emotive than that. Labour's policy and competence and reason and execution and coherence all suck harder than the vacuum of deep space - but they're terribly terribly good at summoning up a well of unreasoned emotion from the lumpen blob. Tories = head. Labour = heart. Heart is stronger than head when it comes to voting in most cases. How very depressing for those of us with a brain.
Actually you should not ask a voter if he has already voted in a VI question. If you exclude postal voters then you are excluding ACTUAL voters, and if you include them you are kind of breaking rules (I think)
So it's a question best not asked !
They just ask I think, have you already voted by postal vote, they don't ask who you vote for.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
there's a difference between "Lamb of God" and "the Lamb of God"
No: it's the term that John the Baptist used to refer to Jesus and, as the Agnus Dei ("behold the Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world") is used in the Eucharistic Prayer
I'm all for keeping our nuclear deterrent. I wish the world didn't have them, but we do and in an international game of MAD - I want both our place on the Security Council and our own nukes updated.
The world is becoming unstable again - it's not as simple as the old Cold War anymore. And given all our Londistan issues - frankly I'm pleased to hear we're getting 4 new subs et al.
A better ratio between top brass and troops would be good too.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
But how exactly can strategic nuclear weapons (of dubious genuine capability I might add) protect us from something like ISIS? Surely better spent (as you rightly indicate) on conventional forces.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
This seat isn’t a marginal so I’m not surprised that we’ve only been canvassed once (by Labour) and had one piece of literature (Labour again). However I drove into Colchester last night along the Old London Road and there was no sign whatsoever that there was an election going on. No posters, no window stickers (that I could see, anyway).
Roughly the usual amount of diamonds (3 or 4) along Braiswick/Bergholt Road though. Only Tory poster I've seen so far was in Stanway.
There was one in a farmers field heading towards Sudbury
That'd be Bernard's territory, rather than Sir Bob's?
Bernard does seem to have been quite good at getting posters up - I was just talking about within Colchester constituency itself.
It was just outside Colchester - tbh not lived there that long and have no idea where the boundary lies
I'm all for keeping our nuclear deterrent. I wish the world didn't have them, but we do and in an international game of MAD - I want both our place on the Security Council and our own nukes updated.
The world is becoming unstable again - it's not as simple as the old Cold War anymore. And given all our Londistan issues - frankly I'm pleased to hear we're getting 4 new subs et al.
A better ratio between top brass and troops would be good too.
Aparently Nigel Farage has backed Trident replacement. If that's so, he can forget (such as it is) my vote. This country will only be on its way back to greatness when we eschew expensive status symbols and get back to sound economics and genuine capability, especially in defence. If UKIP isn't for that, what's the point?
But how exactly can strategic nuclear weapons (of dubious genuine capability I might add) protect us from something like ISIS? Surely better spent (as you rightly indicate) on conventional forces.
256 mirv warheads should deal with the middle east very nicely. There wouldn't be much to visit afterwards though and the oilfields a little fiery.
Comments
I was just pointing out that Cameron has not claimed the title and that many people would find it surprising that it is applied to a politician.
Weighted sample:
18-24 (7 year range): 223 = 223/7 = 32 people per year
60+ (21 year range *): 565 = 565/21 = 27 people per year
OK, there may be a few more people in each year in the younger age groups but even allowing for that the poll is assuming approx. the same "turnout" for each age group - ie turnout of the whole population, not just registered voters.
Yet we know half of young people aren't even registered.
And look how few 18-24s YouGov actually found - only 126 and they had to then weight them up to 223.
* Average life expectancy = 81.5 per Wiki.
"You've been smoking what EdM was smoking yesterday when he talked about the Tories being a virtual party?! "
Not really, just that fanatics are always worrying even if they're right.
An Ed government backed up by SNP could be a tad obsessed. All we need is Galloway to join the cabal. Cameron may be wrong, but he's not a fanatic.
Sample from the net, heavily overloaded with 18-35.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4405688.ece
The Tories are simply well to the Right of mainstream opinion on economics. The only reason the Tories are still in the game is because people trust Cameron a lot more on the world stage / in negotiations with the baddies a lot more than they trust Miliband. Nothing else.
Sturgeon won't commit to voting against a Queen's Speech containing Trident
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/09/election-2015-live-blog-conservatives-challenge-ed-miliband-trident-nuclear-labour
A cynic would say the tories are doing too well too soon. Nobody's going to buy that special election pullout featuring Ed Miliband's inside leg measurement in that case.
It has to be neck and neck right until the end to keep people reading and watching - and then a sensation at the end so that people tune in to the aftermath.
Can't say the same for ICM and Ashcroft, where you need to get a calculator out to get sample sizes for each party. Also, YouGov tends not to give Green sample size, or total voting sample size excluding Don't Knows/Refused.
Especially as now the Tories lead in the unweighted samples.
Even some of the Tories leads in the last few months, they've not led on the unweighted numbers
12 quid subscription 'embrace the election fever'
Nobody's going to sign up for 'embrace the election foregone conclusion' 'embrace the same sort of government as we've already got'
First test TNS - also shows slight softening of Tory share relative to Labour.
Might both be wrong of course. More polls needed!
Dozens of pages and nowhere near as concise as it should be.
Just go back to basics and think big picture.
Is it remotely conceivable that the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s (a 7 year range) will be 40% of the total number of votes cast by people over 60 (a 21 year range)?
I'm sorry but I cannot see how this can possibly be the case.
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
I really don't like the Yougov methodology change.
Someone on here predicted that Miliband might offer one as a rabbit out of the hat during the campaign. I don't see that as likely at all but if he offered one and then welshed on it he'd likely gain quite nicely.
It stinks. But the pollsters know their customers.
UKIP 31 (overstatement 3.5%)
Lab 28 (overstatement 2.6%)
Con 21 (understatement 2.9%)
LD 7 (overstatement 0.1%)
Lab-Con gap 7 (overstatement 5.5%)
So far only Yougov and TNS have shown a substantial improvement on Labour's position, while 3 other pollsters have not shown much change yet.
There is almost nothing which could cause a notable shift in odds back towards Labour before polling day*. Those of us wanting to back them don't get the security of being able to cash-out for a profit. We either hold our nerve until election night or we don't place the bets.
*(That is at all likely to happen, at least)
Trying to "un-skew" the polls by counting unweighted numbers strikes me as pretty futile. The weighting's generally there for a reason.
What I would be interested in is whether or not there's an observer effect going on here - by re-polling people again and again are they more or less likely to "change their mind"?
But then he is behind the http://immersive.sh/thegoodright/ bollox, which might as well be called Blairism 2.0
It's ten years on. The world is more internet savvy, and so is orchestrated politicisation.
Given that many of the people polled are dyed in the wool supporters of one or the other main party, its simply a 'keep everybody' in the game methodology.
These guys want to sell polls. They aren't objective.
Now I am stuck imagining how G(ilbert) & S(ullivan) would have written about the profession of porn stars.
Thank you very much...
Just had a lunchtime walk along the prom. Water temperature is just under 9C and air temperature is 13C with no wind. Yet people are swimming in the sea in normal swim attire (not in wet suits). Do they have no feeling?
There is the danger of Tories sliding into "unskewed polls" territory in the last weeks of the GE.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/unskewed-polls-show-nearly-8-point-romney-lead/
Re Tories and policies - surely the absence of policy waving is the policy in itself. They are campaigning mainly on their record. It's what they deliver in government (sound money and recovery) versus what Labour delivers (mayhem and chaos). Why fog the message by joining in Labour's stupid pork auction?
What I would be interested in is whether or not there's an observer effect going on here - by re-polling people again and again are they more or less likely to "change their mind"?
I agree, weighted numbers are always the best, is why I said, when the first few YouGovs with Tory leads really weren't Tory leads as Lab led on the unweighted basis.
My point was, if we we're comparing on a like for like basis, this week's YouGov using last week's methodology would probably have the Tories ahead.
I reckon LAB 0.3% ahead right now
Talking of which has Romney won Ohio yet???
They're a market niche that a handful of individuals have chosen to occupy because it's there.
Which will mean in reality, nothing quiet and no life.
Will there be another methodology change in the last week where they ask whether people are registered to vote and then bingo 18 to 24s go right back down in the weighted sample?
Sorry to be a fuss but I want an answer to my question:
Are psephological experts really expecting the total number of votes cast by 18 to 24s to be 40% of the total number of votes cast by over 60s?
If they are fine. But I would like to see the calculation. Because it seems to me that even the most basic Primary School numeracy skills would show that this cannot possibly be right.
"UKIP's paymasters, the EU elite, are getting exactly what they want from UKIP:"
I thought Tapestry had some strange ideas but ...
I can just imagine it; " Jacques, pay Ukip more, ze plan is working perfectly, those silly English are falling for it."
So it's a question best not asked !
The world is becoming unstable again - it's not as simple as the old Cold War anymore. And given all our Londistan issues - frankly I'm pleased to hear we're getting 4 new subs et al.
A better ratio between top brass and troops would be good too.
I shall have to consider whether I vote at all I suppose.