Every race, if you followed my tips, has been red. But if I get a 2/1 winner next time, I'm green overall. (Today was red by 50 pence, using my standard £10 stake comparison). I've had 3/7 tips right. So, not quite sure how to feel about that.
Post-race piece will be up before 7pm. Probably.
Not the best race, but well done to the winner. The best thing for me was the return of sparks from the cars. Back to the 80's.
I fear my son is not an F1 fan. I lifted him to my shoulder so he could watch the start, and by the time the lights went out he was fast asleep!
Proper crossover? Sure, it could happen. And then right back. Just a matter of if enough moe changes occur in one direction for enough days for it to happen, before the dead heat reasserts itself.
It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...
(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.
"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."
As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party . For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of 10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
Link?
Any good book on statistics
Unfortunately I have several on my shelves, not including the ones at work. I've just checked Lohr's "Sampling: Design and analysis", but it doesn't have that equation. I keep an A-level book at work for occasions such as these, where I need to know something obvious (I always say I learnt all the maths I needed to know at A-level, the degrees were just more and more about less and less) but I'm at home today
For those wot missed it earlier - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week ending 19th April 2015 - a bumper 16 polls, sample 19596.
While I'm here jabbering to you fine people, can anybody remember a post about how the percentage of people who simply haven't made their minds up yet? It was either here or on UKPR but I'm up to my eyelids.
The last yougov had 10% don't knows. Survation had 13% and 25% might change my mind (but only 13% in Scotland)
For those wot missed it earlier - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week ending 19th April 2015 - a bumper 16 polls, sample 19596.
Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?
Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.
Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.
And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
Get real. Nothing is more centralist than FPTP, with its closed-list-of-one, Duvergerian agenda, safe seats for life, AWS and parachutists from Central Office, etc...
True, but are other electoral systems of western democracy better, or should we make our own original sytem? The best democracy is the swiss one but that's because they have constant referendums on anything small or big.
Apart from Carswell no other MP has ever tried to thing outside the box on this issue, and that is because like on most things people don't care about things until push comes to shove and are forced to make a choice.
The AV referendum was like that, people were forced to choose between 2 bad electoral systems and FPTP won because it was more simple and convenient than AV, I even had a bad joke at the time mixing STV & STD.
Most of the systems of PR are different and have been developed independently from one another, albeit using some basic building blocks. They can be very simple, like the Israeli, or highly-complex like the Danish. We could apply our minds via Citizen Forums, assisted by academics, to come up with a system best suited to our own needs. I had a go and came up with PR^2.
Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?
Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.
Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.
And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.
The 5% is only in place due to their unfortunate history.
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
On BBC Sunday Politics Wales Ms Wood was asked under what circumstances Plaid Cymru would vote down a Labour government and whether she’d vote down a Queen Speech.
“We may well do that. There is precedence for this,” she said. “Back in 1979 Plaid Cymru MPs managed to strike a deal with the Labour government at that time, which delivered a very good deal for sufferers of pneumoconiosis in the slate quarries
“We just know that in an event of a hung parliament... the stronger a team of Plaid Cymru MPs in that scenario the more chance we can win for Wales.”
Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?
Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.
Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.
And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
Get real. Nothing is more centralist than FPTP, with its closed-list-of-one, Duvergerian agenda, safe seats for life, AWS and parachutists from Central Office, etc...
Sure: FPTP is not democratic, but none are any of the other systems. Almost by definition, any system which has parties that run on a common platform in an election and command loyalty from representatives afterwards are non-democratic.
I'd say that the US is closest to an elected oligarchy/Republic (which was - after all - what the Founders wanted) and UK system is also at that end of the spectrum.
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
On BBC Sunday Politics Wales Ms Wood was asked under what circumstances Plaid Cymru would vote down a Labour government and whether she’d vote down a Queen Speech.
“We may well do that. There is precedence for this,” she said. “Back in 1979 Plaid Cymru MPs managed to strike a deal with the Labour government at that time, which delivered a very good deal for sufferers of pneumoconiosis in the slate quarries
“We just know that in an event of a hung parliament... the stronger a team of Plaid Cymru MPs in that scenario the more chance we can win for Wales.”
She wouldn't do it. They're just rolling back because they realised they went too strong on promising under no circumstances would they potentially let the Tories in,making any demands safely ignorable by Miliband.
If the Tories suddenly push into a big enough lead to win, it will be like Vettel winning his first championship, when he had not led the championship race at any point in the season until the final race.
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
With total respect, for I have no reason to think you do not deserve respect, I don't think you understand how the Irish or Dutch electoral systems work - there is a very significant role for voters to choose candidates in each, and in fact large parties have far less control over candidates in Ireland because each voter ranks multiple candidates in their constituencies; whereas as Mr Crosby notes, FPTP is a closed list of one appointed by, at best, a dwindling local party and, at worst, the drafter of an A-list in Central House.
I don't know the Dutch system, but I am rather a fan of multi-member, open list STV (largely based on the Irish approach). It's much more democratic, although still some way from the purist concept. Parties should be an administrative convenience and about burden sharing, no more. Although I personally believe that the executive control of the legislature is a bigger problem in the UK than parties per se.
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
For those wot missed it earlier - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week ending 19th April 2015 - a bumper 16 polls, sample 19596.
How would it look if you took the average YouGov score for the first three days and last three days and used those two numbers rather than six YG's a week?
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
Seems everyone is expecting a late swing, even though the evidence to back up that expectation is supposedly mixed.
But the status quo is NOT the Tories which is where this analysis falls down. The status quo is the CON-LD coalition which is not on the ballot.
That's why SLAB is in deep do-do - the status quo in Scotland is now the SNP.......so much as the SNP has history of over claim and under delivery.....this time I wouldn't count on it.....
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging out
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
For those wot missed it earlier - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week ending 19th April 2015 - a bumper 16 polls, sample 19596.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.
On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.
AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
Wrong.
The relevant rule says:
"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."
Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.
It's a conspiracy I tell you. Only the glorious SNP has the right to win Heywood, Thurrock blah blah blah.
The best conspiracy theory was in SINDYREF when one Nat complained that he wasn't able to edit his posts, but filthy pig dog imperialist scum Unionists were......until someone pointed out the six minute rule applied to all......
Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?
Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.
Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.
And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.
The 5% is only in place due to their unfortunate history.
For those wot missed it earlier - the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week ending 19th April 2015 - a bumper 16 polls, sample 19596.
How would it look if you took the average YouGov score for the first three days and last three days and used those two numbers rather than six YG's a week?
Also how do we know the same people are not being used again and again for yougov or the others for that matter. Saying a sample is 19000 is one thing but we have no idea how many duplicates.
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
Seems everyone is expecting a late swing, even though the evidence to back up that expectation is supposedly mixed.
But the status quo is NOT the Tories which is where this analysis falls down. The status quo is the CON-LD coalition which is not on the ballot.
Are you suggesting we should expect a late swing to the LDs?
Possible (it seemed more so a couple of years ago), but more likely the fact of coalition has messed up the usual dynamics, and no swing back to the status quo parties is to occur
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
Really? On your prediction of the seats, far more generous to the Tories than I think will occur, Labour still have an easier time of forming a government if the LDs are not involved.
Mr Kellner: "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.
I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.
Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."
Seems everyone is expecting a late swing, even though the evidence to back up that expectation is supposedly mixed.
But the status quo is NOT the Tories which is where this analysis falls down. The status quo is the CON-LD coalition which is not on the ballot.
Are you suggesting we should expect a late swing to the LDs?
I am sure I heard someone on here say that this applies to larger coalition partners but smaller partners get hammered.
Mrs Merkel said that recently, but if you go back to 2010, Mr Oaten (promoting his book on the history of coalitions in the UK) said that the LDs would lose out if they joined a coalition government.
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
I'm sure that a Lab+SNP + LD coalition is any more plausible.
Surely on these numbers you'd end up with a Lab+SNP minority government (I doubt you could even do Lab + SNP S&C and make it work).
Perhaps it could be a minority government, with Labour not voting en masse against budget & Queen's Speech?
The telephone polls have shown a recent crossover in favour of the Tories, whereas the YouGov polls show the opposite. The most recent true comparison was a couple of days ago, see below. Click charts to enlarge.
Many people are relying upon the poll of polls, or Wiki's graphical summary to average out the polls. My issue with these averages is that YouGov results are seriously over represented, due to the quantity of results it produces, particularly since it commenced polling every day.
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
Same here. If the SNP get 50 seats, I can not see why Milliband is favourite to become PM.
Does not make sense, unless he wins a lot more seats in England & Wales than you are suggesting.
Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?
Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.
Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.
And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?
None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.
The 5% is only in place due to their unfortunate history.
Is the 5% in place in London for the same reason?
Probably! I seem to remember that when I did my German degree politics class it was a good thing because it kept out small parties I.e. the very minor residual far right
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
In the Braveheart film they took York , poetic licence from Hollywood. So a lot more would be yessers in movie world. The new border would be the Humber and the Ouse.
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging out
Hi Nemtynakht
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
In the Braveheart film they took York , poetic licence from Hollywood. So a lot more would be yessers in movie world. The new border would be the Humber and the Ouse.
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
In the Braveheart film they took York , poetic licence from Hollywood. So a lot more would be yessers in movie world. The new border would be the Humber and the Ouse.
Bonnie Prince Sunil reached Derby....
EDIT: I mean Charlie - ooops!
Yes , I wonder why they never kept hadrians wall in good order. Would have helped in keep those picts out of gods own county.
I have been reading back and notice that there is some emphasis being made on E and E&W shares. This I admire. However I don't think it goes far enough. This election may very well be marked by the most regional and polarised voting for several generations. Certainly the early results need to be treated with utmost caution. What we may see in, say, the north east (cities like like Sunderland as an early result) may very well not be replicated elsewhere. Here are some obvious examples:
SNP in Scotland Labour in London, but again be careful. There are big splits e.g. east and west. West Midlands Labour UKIP effect in Kent and the east coast South West Liberal Democrat wipeout and so it goes on.
Thus the apparent uniform 2010 Con to Lab swing being touted on here re E&W could be utterly misleading. Already reliant as it is on a sub-sample, the minor variations within them could make them impossible to discern what is actually going to happen in terms of seats. Whether this favours the Conservatives is not the point. It may. But it may not.
It may take several hours to see how the actual result will pan out and the overall picture may be a country more divided than ever before.
If you think there is going to be shy Tory factor in play at this election then does it not stand to reason that there might be shy Kipper factor too?
One of the side effects of the rise of Ukip has been to make the Tories not look quite so nasty. I'm not saying that there definitely won't be shy Tory syndrome or that there definitely will be shy Kipper syndrome, I just don't think the Tories can assume that the polls will necessarily be underestimating their share of the vote.
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
In the Braveheart film they took York , poetic licence from Hollywood. So a lot more would be yessers in movie world. The new border would be the Humber and the Ouse.
Bonnie Prince Sunil reached Derby....
EDIT: I mean Charlie - ooops!
Yes , I wonder why they never kept hadrians wall in good order. Would have helped in keep those picts out of gods own county.
They did - they called it the Highland Clearances!
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
I think that's quite a sensible forecast - although I suspect UKIP will be 2-3, and the LibDems maybe 2 or 3 seats higher.
I'd probably go for:
Con 290 Lab 265 SNP 50 LD 20 PC 3 UKIP 3
This is all based on LDs 10%, UKIP 12%. With LDs on 12% and UKIP on 15%, you get 35 LibDem MPs!
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging out
Hi Nemtynakht
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
YouGov only (7 polls, sample 11,232):
Lab 34.7 Con 33.2 UKIP 13.5 LD 7.9 Grn 5.2
Non-YouGov only (9 polls, sample 8,364):
Con 34.0 Lab 33.2 UKIP 13.6 LD 8.2 Grn 5.1
Looks like a stale YouGov panel. It is turning into a safety blanket for Labour. I have been in the YouGov VI at least 6 times in the past couple of weeks.
With each threat that comes from the SNP indicating that they will be the sole arbitors of what passes the House of Commons the more likely England will move to the conservatives, but not only that it is now becoming obvious that the one subject that there will be a grand coalition is over EVEL which is now certain to happen fairly soon into the new parliament. I think the SNP are overplaying their hand
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Most opinion polls take into account the certainty to vote (if not then yougov would have shown a much bigger Labour lead). Ans as for point 3, the Tory campaign so far looks disorganized.
Do the polls take into account the fact that turnout in safe Labour seats is usually lower than average? For example in both 1992 and 1997, when Labour were gaining seats, the number of Labour votes in their safe seats actually flatlined or, in a small but notable number of constituencies, declined slightly.
A good example is Leicester West. Labour votes, 1987: 22,156. 1992: 22,574. 1997: 22,580.
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Yes, 23 years ago, these all applied. In the current election, there is no evidence for 3; all evidence suggests that Labour have the force-multiplier of local organisation to convert money into campaigning. 4 is puzzling in an era when the Tories have allegedly been detoxified by the rise of Ukip and the rightward trajectory of public discourse. So all that's left are 1 and 2, which you try to control for by asking about propensity to vote.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
I doubt that. Most people don't vote tactically, they vote for something they believe in. Sure, in 50 to 70 marginals, you will see UKIP squeezed, but in the majority UKIP is giving voice to people who went previously unheard, so I would expect them to get 12-13% on the day.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
I doubt that. Most people don't vote tactically, they vote for something they believe in. Sure, in 50 to 70 marginals, you will see UKIP squeezed, but in the majority UKIP is giving voice to people who went previously unheard, so I would expect them to get 12-13% on the day.
I agree re people not voting tactically.
What I am saying is that people are much less likely to do something if they realise it is pointless / a waste of time.
They are also less likely to do something if they get disheartened.
I'm not just thinking of politics - I am thinking of all human behaviour generally.
Everyone on here knows how votes to seats work (at least in rough, broad terms). But most of the public don't. If they find out it will cause a huge shock - and lead to what is only a natural, human reaction.
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
And as for point 3, the Tory campaign so far looks disorganized.
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging out
Hi Nemtynakht
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
YouGov only (7 polls, sample 11,232):
Lab 34.7 Con 33.2 UKIP 13.5 LD 7.9 Grn 5.2
Non-YouGov only (9 polls, sample 8,364):
Con 34.0 Lab 33.2 UKIP 13.6 LD 8.2 Grn 5.1
Looks like a stale YouGov panel. It is turning into a safety blanket for Labour. I have been in the YouGov VI at least 6 times in the past couple of weeks.
Think there's a risk of over-obsessing here over small differences, 34.0 vs 33.2 etc. These are the sort of differences you'd expect from any comparison. It's like finding that 2% more men than women have read Hamlet and developing a theory as to why...
YouGov's movements will only be insignificant if the January samples were in some way unrepresentative of the country AND move in a different way. I'm expecting that 3-point lead to drop back (looks just a random twitch to my mind) but if it didn't it would be interesting. Same applies to Opinium's 4%, of course.
With each threat that comes from the SNP indicating that they will be the sole arbitors of what passes the House of Commons the more likely England will move to the conservatives, but not only that it is now becoming obvious that the one subject that there will be a grand coalition is over EVEL which is now certain to happen fairly soon into the new parliament. I think the SNP are overplaying their hand
All this fighting talk is foolish. The SNP are about to engage with Westminster as never before. They are about to start voting and taking part. That can only be a good thing for both Scotland and the Union. The conflict will be within the SNP. There will be those who simply want to wreck the process, prove the futility of engaging with Westminster, and cause bad blood both sides of the border, and those with the genuine interests of the Scottish people at heart, who will use their newly achieved power wisely, and legislate with ambition and intelligence. Perhaps they will end up running the whole country. Let's wait and see what happens.
Fear the skin-deep knowledge of international newswires. Every party in Finland is pro-Europe, even The Finns (formerly True Finns), who have moderated significantly since the last election; in particular, they no longer oppose future euro area bailouts.
One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.
However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
LAB/SNP deal.
Yes maybe Sturgeon will frighten those UKIP voters back to Cameron ?
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
If we can move the border down from the Tweed to the Tees then I say Yes.
It is one of these 'cat-flap' referenda. It only works one way - once you're through you can't go back. Should Scotland go? Maybe - what the English would hate would be for Scotland to bleed England dry before they leave. If that happens then Labour is toast.
With each threat that comes from the SNP indicating that they will be the sole arbitors of what passes the House of Commons the more likely England will move to the conservatives, but not only that it is now becoming obvious that the one subject that there will be a grand coalition is over EVEL which is now certain to happen fairly soon into the new parliament. I think the SNP are overplaying their hand
All this fighting talk is foolish. The SNP are about to engage with Westminster as never before. They are about to start voting and taking part. That can only be a good thing for both Scotland and the Union. The conflict will be within the SNP. There will be those who simply want to wreck the process, prove the futility of engaging with Westminster, and cause bad blood both sides of the border, and those with the genuine interests of the Scottish people at heart, who will use their newly achieved power wisely, and legislate with ambition and intelligence. Perhaps they will end up running the whole country. Let's wait and see what happens.
The conflict will be with RUK who will not accept the SNP voting on English matters that are devolved to Scotland. Also has anyone thought how this chaos would pass the House of Lords.
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging out
Hi Nemtynakht
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
YouGov only (7 polls, sample 11,232):
Lab 34.7 Con 33.2 UKIP 13.5 LD 7.9 Grn 5.2
Non-YouGov only (9 polls, sample 8,364):
Con 34.0 Lab 33.2 UKIP 13.6 LD 8.2 Grn 5.1
Looks like a stale YouGov panel. It is turning into a safety blanket for Labour. I have been in the YouGov VI at least 6 times in the past couple of weeks.
I did wonder about this. The lack of variation in the YouGov polls is beginning to make their approach look quite dodgy. Asking the same question over and over again and expecting a different answer... what's that the definition of?
The headline is slightly misleading as he's been beaten by the even more pro-European Centre Party.
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Yes, 23 years ago, these all applied. In the current election, there is no evidence for 3; all evidence suggests that Labour have the force-multiplier of local organisation to convert money into campaigning. 4 is puzzling in an era when the Tories have allegedly been detoxified by the rise of Ukip and the rightward trajectory of public discourse. So all that's left are 1 and 2, which you try to control for by asking about propensity to vote.
Number 3 ain't a factor judging by the respondent rates. SLAB look like they're throwing the kitchen sink into saving Murphy and Dougie judging by the contact rates - both excellent. THough it doesn't seem to be helping them.
Do the polls take into account the fact that turnout in safe Labour seats is usually lower than average? For example in both 1992 and 1997, when Labour were gaining seats, the number of Labour votes in their safe seats actually flatlined or, in a small but notable number of constituencies, declined slightly.
A good example is Leicester West. Labour votes, 1987: 22,156. 1992: 22,574. 1997: 22,580.
I am not sure that is a very good example. That was Greville Janners seat in 1987, the naming of him in the Frank Beck case affected the 92 election. He retired in 1997 and was replaced by the awful Patricia Hewitt.
The headline is slightly misleading as he's been beaten by the even more pro-European Centre Party.
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
Update: The Finns (formerly True Finns) are now on 17%... which puts them at roughly the same level as National Coalition and slightly ahead of the Social Democrats.
Do the polls take into account the fact that turnout in safe Labour seats is usually lower than average? For example in both 1992 and 1997, when Labour were gaining seats, the number of Labour votes in their safe seats actually flatlined or, in a small but notable number of constituencies, declined slightly.
It's not about the number of votes so much as the share of it.
In 1997 all first 3 seats to declare were safe Labour seats and had swings of 11,11 and 7%, the swing for the election was 10.
In 1992 the swing for the first 3 seats declared was 2.5, 1.5 and 0.5%, the swing for the election was 1.9.
In 2001 it was 2.1, 3.5, 1.5 and the GE swing was 1.8. In 2005 it was 4, 5.5, 4 and the GE swing was 3.1. In 2010 it was 8.4, 11.6, 4.8 and the GE swing was 5.
So in 1992&1997 the difference was not that great from the UNS, only from 2005 onwards was there a greater variation because tactical voting became more and more complex.
I fully expect that by the time Nuneaton declares we will know if the exit poll is correct or not.
With each threat that comes from the SNP indicating that they will be the sole arbitors of what passes the House of Commons the more likely England will move to the conservatives, but not only that it is now becoming obvious that the one subject that there will be a grand coalition is over EVEL which is now certain to happen fairly soon into the new parliament. I think the SNP are overplaying their hand
All this fighting talk is foolish. The SNP are about to engage with Westminster as never before. They are about to start voting and taking part. That can only be a good thing for both Scotland and the Union. The conflict will be within the SNP. There will be those who simply want to wreck the process, prove the futility of engaging with Westminster, and cause bad blood both sides of the border, and those with the genuine interests of the Scottish people at heart, who will use their newly achieved power wisely, and legislate with ambition and intelligence. Perhaps they will end up running the whole country. Let's wait and see what happens.
The actions of the SNP by participating in Union wide legislation is going to be very interesting. They may well be a fair number who are rather unexpectedly elected and find the whole Westminster parliament rather tiresome, or they may be seduced by the bright lights of the big city. They may not be the easiest bunch to keep in line.
The SNP are going to have to engage with the rest of the Union in ways that they never have before.
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
I will withdraw the allegations of deliberately favouring Labour (no evidence other than the effect) - but not the suggestion that all potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
D'Hondt (+1 FPTP island seat), Open Lists, No Threshold (although a de facto constituency threshold exists, varying from about 2.7% to 12.5%), List alliances permitted.
The headline is slightly misleading as he's been beaten by the even more pro-European Centre Party.
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
Update: The Finns (formerly True Finns) are now on 17%... which puts them at roughly the same level as National Coalition and slightly ahead of the Social Democrats.
Well the Centre Party might have won the popular vote and The Finns are second largest party in votes, but I can see a continuation of the present government even if it composes of parties that came third, fourth, fifth and sixth.
Finland has a worse and more fragmented political system than Britain can ever have.
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
I will withdraw the allegations of deliberately favouring Labour (no evidence other than the effect) - but not the suggestion that all potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
For full disclosure, and MikeL and TSE can attest to this, my spreadsheet of polls occasionally, and totally unintentionally, has typos giving the Tories a boost at expense of Labour.
D'Hondt (+1 FPTP island seat), Open Lists, No Threshold (although a de facto constituency threshold exists, varying from about 2.7% to 12.5%), List alliances permitted.
It's a test case of worse electoral systems than FPTP.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
How could anyone possibly know how much the LDs lost in the last 24 hours of 2010?
But even if there was proof, you don't take a drop of 3 from 26 to 23 and apply it to make 12 into 9 (or 8 as you have done). You would divide 23 by 26 (0.88) and multiply the result by the UKIP score 24 hours before the GE
It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors: 1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote. 2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote. 3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest. 4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Sorry, there's also an important 5th factor which I omitted to mention and which is new to this particular GE. Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense. How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance. No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
I will withdraw the allegations of deliberately favouring Labour (no evidence other than the effect) - but not the suggestion that all potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
For full disclosure, and MikeL and TSE can attest to this, my spreadsheet of polls occasionally, and totally unintentionally, has typos giving the Tories a boost at expense of Labour.
Honest mistake.....
Full disclosure may require I have significant sums dependent on EICIPM!!
D'Hondt (+1 FPTP island seat), Open Lists, No Threshold (although a de facto constituency threshold exists, varying from about 2.7% to 12.5%), List alliances permitted.
It's a test case of worse electoral systems than FPTP.
The headline is slightly misleading as he's been beaten by the even more pro-European Centre Party.
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
Update: The Finns (formerly True Finns) are now on 17%... which puts them at roughly the same level as National Coalition and slightly ahead of the Social Democrats.
Well the Centre Party might have won the popular vote and The Finns are second largest party in votes, but I can see a continuation of the present government even if it composes of parties that came third, fourth, fifth and sixth.
Finland has a worse and more fragmented political system than Britain can ever have.
It's not quite as bonkers as the Netherlands, where there will almost certainly be five parties all with between 15 and 25 seats. Essentially, any coalition will require at least three parties.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
I doubt that. Most people don't vote tactically, they vote for something they believe in. Sure, in 50 to 70 marginals, you will see UKIP squeezed, but in the majority UKIP is giving voice to people who went previously unheard, so I would expect them to get 12-13% on the day.
The biggest thing for UKIP will be whether the broadcasters start putting up seat forecasts on the main TV news programmes in the last 48 hours.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
I doubt that. Most people don't vote tactically, they vote for something they believe in. Sure, in 50 to 70 marginals, you will see UKIP squeezed, but in the majority UKIP is giving voice to people who went previously unheard, so I would expect them to get 12-13% on the day.
12-13% would mean more than 2-3 seats
I don't see more than 3, I'm afraid, because I don't think UKIP's vote is efficiently enough distributed yet. If the LibDems can eat into Labour/Tories a bit by getting say 12 to 13% too, then UKIP might get a few more.
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
I will withdraw the allegations of deliberately favouring Labour (no evidence other than the effect) - but not the suggestion that all potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
For full disclosure, and MikeL and TSE can attest to this, my spreadsheet of polls occasionally, and totally unintentionally, has typos giving the Tories a boost at expense of Labour.
Honest mistake.....
Full disclosure may require I have significant sums dependent on EICIPM!!
Was the penalty denied to Bournemouth yesterday the worst call of all time?
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
I will withdraw the allegations of deliberately favouring Labour (no evidence other than the effect) - but not the suggestion that all potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
For full disclosure, and MikeL and TSE can attest to this, my spreadsheet of polls occasionally, and totally unintentionally, has typos giving the Tories a boost at expense of Labour.
Honest mistake.....
Full disclosure may require I have significant sums dependent on EICIPM!!
I hope you have that big banner printed for the BBC to deploy on Big Ben tower when the exit poll is announced!
Comments
I fear my son is not an F1 fan. I lifted him to my shoulder so he could watch the start, and by the time the lights went out he was fast asleep!
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589748381813239808
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/general-election-2015-plaid-could-9075564?
On BBC Sunday Politics Wales Ms Wood was asked under what circumstances Plaid Cymru would vote down a Labour government and whether she’d vote down a Queen Speech.
“We may well do that. There is precedence for this,” she said. “Back in 1979 Plaid Cymru MPs managed to strike a deal with the Labour government at that time, which delivered a very good deal for sufferers of pneumoconiosis in the slate quarries
“We just know that in an event of a hung parliament... the stronger a team of Plaid Cymru MPs in that scenario the more chance we can win for Wales.”
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589749837446434816
I'd say that the US is closest to an elected oligarchy/Republic (which was - after all - what the Founders wanted) and UK system is also at that end of the spectrum.
Personally, I would prefer Scotland to go anyways , I imagine many feel the same.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/19/tories-are-losing-both-air-war-and-ground-war/
This is what I think will happen:
Con 295
Lab 265
SNP 50
LD 18
PC 3
UKIP 1
I do not think LD will go into any arrangement with the Tories - if they do they will earn the tag Tory bitch and earn that name well. A great party is being decimated in front of our eyes.
I am still not sure why Miliband is favourite to become PM.
I am sceptical about online as a class, but also YouGov's methodology shift themselves (assuming January was "right" seems a big assumption).
1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote.
2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote.
3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest.
4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
For the corresponding week last year it was 12.8, and no doubt people were saying "after the Euros there will be a slump down to single figures" etc
if we remove the highest and lowest score in each set of numbers the averages are 13.42 for this year and 12.75 for last
http://www.harriman-house.com/book/view/194/current-affairs/mark-oaten/coalition/
Surely on these numbers you'd end up with a Lab+SNP minority government (I doubt you could even do Lab + SNP S&C and make it work).
Perhaps it could be a minority government, with Labour not voting en masse against budget & Queen's Speech?
Many people are relying upon the poll of polls, or Wiki's graphical summary to average out the polls. My issue with these averages is that YouGov results are seriously over represented, due to the quantity of results it produces, particularly since it commenced polling every day.
If the SNP get 50 seats, I can not see why Milliband is favourite to become PM.
Does not make sense, unless he wins a lot more seats in England & Wales than you are suggesting.
SHAVE - Sandy's Hunch for Actual Votes in the Election.
Labour 35%
Conservative 35%
Lib Dem 10%
UKIP 10%
EM = PM
PP = LOTO
Constituency Hunches:
The Sort of North East 3:
Redcar: Lab Gain
Stockton South: Lab Gain
Berwick: Con Gain
The My Ex-Manor 2:
Loughborough: Lab Gain
Ealing Central & Acton: Lab Gain
The Full Monty 1:
Sheffield Hallam: Lib Dem Hold
So a lot more would be yessers in movie world.
The new border would be the Humber and the Ouse.
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
YouGov only (7 polls, sample 11,232):
Lab 34.7
Con 33.2
UKIP 13.5
LD 7.9
Grn 5.2
Non-YouGov only (9 polls, sample 8,364):
Con 34.0
Lab 33.2
UKIP 13.6
LD 8.2
Grn 5.1
Alastair Campbell ✔ @campbellclaret
That moment when @david_cameron wonders about putting on the claret and blue and pretends to be a Villa fan http://www.kicca.com/campbellclaret/posts/5533e186cc10ed42657cbbc4 …
From someone born in Bradford and supports Burnley in Lancashire,disgusting ;-)
EDIT: I mean Charlie - ooops!
Well worth checking my blog for Mr. M's tips, he's doing rather better than me this year.
Would have helped in keep those picts out of gods own county.
SNP in Scotland
Labour in London, but again be careful. There are big splits e.g. east and west.
West Midlands Labour
UKIP effect in Kent and the east coast
South West Liberal Democrat wipeout
and so it goes on.
Thus the apparent uniform 2010 Con to Lab swing being touted on here re E&W could be utterly misleading. Already reliant as it is on a sub-sample, the minor variations within them could make them impossible to discern what is actually going to happen in terms of seats. Whether this favours the Conservatives is not the point. It may. But it may not.
It may take several hours to see how the actual result will pan out and the overall picture may be a country more divided than ever before.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/bahrain-post-race-analysis.html
One of the side effects of the rise of Ukip has been to make the Tories not look quite so nasty. I'm not saying that there definitely won't be shy Tory syndrome or that there definitely will be shy Kipper syndrome, I just don't think the Tories can assume that the polls will necessarily be underestimating their share of the vote.
I'd probably go for:
Con 290
Lab 265
SNP 50
LD 20
PC 3
UKIP 3
This is all based on LDs 10%, UKIP 12%. With LDs on 12% and UKIP on 15%, you get 35 LibDem MPs!
Ans as for point 3, the Tory campaign so far looks disorganized.
A good example is Leicester West. Labour votes, 1987: 22,156. 1992: 22,574. 1997: 22,580.
My guess is that answer will be yes.
Most people have a vague idea that UKIP will do reasonably well. We know they get 12% in the ICM wisdom - so, on average, people expect them to get 12%.
What 95% of people would realise for a second is that 12% of votes may only mean 1 to 5 seats. Most people will be flabbergasted that that could be the case.
If the majority of people see seat forecasts of UKIP getting 1 to 5 seats their vote share will crumble. The LDs lost 3% in 2010 in the final 24 hours. If UKIP is on 12% with 48 hours to go and seat forecasts get widely displayed so most people see them they could easily fall to 8% on the day.
What I am saying is that people are much less likely to do something if they realise it is pointless / a waste of time.
They are also less likely to do something if they get disheartened.
I'm not just thinking of politics - I am thinking of all human behaviour generally.
Everyone on here knows how votes to seats work (at least in rough, broad terms). But most of the public don't. If they find out it will cause a huge shock - and lead to what is only a natural, human reaction.
YouGov's movements will only be insignificant if the January samples were in some way unrepresentative of the country AND move in a different way. I'm expecting that 3-point lead to drop back (looks just a random twitch to my mind) but if it didn't it would be interesting. Same applies to Opinium's 4%, of course.
Fear the skin-deep knowledge of international newswires. Every party in Finland is pro-Europe, even The Finns (formerly True Finns), who have moderated significantly since the last election; in particular, they no longer oppose future euro area bailouts.
The headline is slightly misleading as he's been beaten by the even more pro-European Centre Party.
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
The question for Finland is who ends up in coalition with the Centre Party. Juha Sipila, who I met when I was tech analyst in the late 1990s, has said he's open about who he is coalition with, and refused to rule out the Eurosceptic True Finns, who came fourth on 15% of the vote.
Despite all the chat about a True Finn coalition, I suspect that there'll be a coalition with one of the other parties. We shall see...
Update: The Finns (formerly True Finns) are now on 17%... which puts them at roughly the same level as National Coalition and slightly ahead of the Social Democrats.
In 1997 all first 3 seats to declare were safe Labour seats and had swings of 11,11 and 7%, the swing for the election was 10.
In 1992 the swing for the first 3 seats declared was 2.5, 1.5 and 0.5%, the swing for the election was 1.9.
In 2001 it was 2.1, 3.5, 1.5 and the GE swing was 1.8.
In 2005 it was 4, 5.5, 4 and the GE swing was 3.1.
In 2010 it was 8.4, 11.6, 4.8 and the GE swing was 5.
So in 1992&1997 the difference was not that great from the UNS, only from 2005 onwards was there a greater variation because tactical voting became more and more complex.
I fully expect that by the time Nuneaton declares we will know if the exit poll is correct or not.
The SNP are going to have to engage with the rest of the Union in ways that they never have before.
I said 6 months ago voter registration should be a big worry for Lab.
Think most seats could depend on sufficient Lab voters registering.
Not good with one day to gather I hear.
Your comments about the intergrity of pollsters are unacceptable.
It is fine to critique their methodgolgy, but not their integrity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11546760/The-SNPs-very-Scottish-conspiracy....html
D'Hondt (+1 FPTP island seat), Open Lists, No Threshold (although a de facto constituency threshold exists, varying from about 2.7% to 12.5%), List alliances permitted.
Well the Centre Party might have won the popular vote and The Finns are second largest party in votes, but I can see a continuation of the present government even if it composes of parties that came third, fourth, fifth and sixth.
Finland has a worse and more fragmented political system than Britain can ever have.
Honest mistake.....
It's a test case of worse electoral systems than FPTP.
But even if there was proof, you don't take a drop of 3 from 26 to 23 and apply it to make 12 into 9 (or 8 as you have done). You would divide 23 by 26 (0.88) and multiply the result by the UKIP score 24 hours before the GE
Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense.
How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance.
No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.
Keighley is in the metropolitan borough of the City of Bradford,he is what we call in football ,a Glory hunter ;-)
I know,it's Burnley = LOL
But, this is clearly wrong.
If polling was so well understood, then the variation in poll results that we currently are experiencing would not be happening.
Go on, I'm all ears... :roll
Finland has a worse and more fragmented political system than Britain can ever have.
It's not quite as bonkers as the Netherlands, where there will almost certainly be five parties all with between 15 and 25 seats. Essentially, any coalition will require at least three parties.
Absolutely incredible