Mike, is it possible that YouGov is more accurate for European elections as turnout is lower, limited to the most politically active, as are panels for online polls; whereas they are less representative of the general election electorate? I also suspect that panel approach leads to more stable poll results than random sampling of the entire electorate.
Mike, is it possible that YouGov is more accurate for European elections as turnout is lower, limited to the most politically active, as are panels for online polls; whereas they are less representative of the general election electorate? I also suspect that panel approach leads to more stable poll results than random sampling of the entire electorate.
I struggle to see the point of the daily poll, really. It's been going quite a while now, and hasn't really provided any more insight than a monthly one would. Or am I wrong?
I don't know the ins and outs of opinion polling, but I wouldn't want to be clinging to YouGov. That said, the Tories are still some way off the gap they had over Labour last time and I really don't think they can assume the Lib Dems will back them so it's still going to be close.
Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
Mike, is it possible that YouGov is more accurate for European elections as turnout is lower, limited to the most politically active, as are panels for online polls; whereas they are less representative of the general election electorate? I also suspect that panel approach leads to more stable poll results than random sampling of the entire electorate.
We don't really know, but bear in mind that YouGov has a large panel, most of whom are not political - people join to contribute opinions on things like "Would you be proud or embarrassed to work for Kelloggs?", presumably because it's money for nothing. It's an observable fact that their polls are more stable, but that's on the whole more likely to be correct than big swings from poll to poll as we've seen with e.g. ICM. I don't think anyone on the ground is detecting major shifts from day to day or even week to week.
The current YG details show a 3-point Labour lead, dampened to 2 by slightly higher Tory certainty to vote. Labour doing well in the Midlands/Wales and North, and badly in the South and Scotland, not especially well in London. A persistent feature of recent days is that Labour has recovered ground among 2010 LibDems (consistently 30+ recently after a dip to the mid-20s previously).
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
[snip] We don't really know, but bear in mind that YouGov has a large panel, most of whom are not political - people join to contribute opinions on things like "Would you be proud or embarrassed to work for Kelloggs?", presumably because it's money for nothing. [snip]
...and tick "Never heard of Kelloggs" to avoid the supplementaries!
There was an interesting sub-discussion on here a few weeks ago about the motivations for doing these surveys and the effective chargeable time per hour when one did take part.
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
Another way of looking at it is that the larger number of data points should give a better view of trends as rouges get quickly subsumed in the larger data set.
i do agree that taking weekly averages is good though
Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
Returns in a local government election may only be questioned by way of election petition (Representation of the People Act 1983, s. 127). The petition must be brought by four or more persons entitled to vote in the election (s. 128(1)). The parties to an election petition are obliged to pay the costs of the petition in such manner and proportion as the election court may determine (s. 154(1)).
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
I agree it's best to average the last 5, or 7 Yougov polls, and treat them as one with the other weekly polls. And, to average the last two Populus polls. In summary, we get Labour leads of 1.5% with Populus, 1% with Yougov, 2% with TNS, 2% with Ipsos Mori, and 3% with Panelbase. We get Conservative leads of 4% with each of Opinium, ComRes, Survation, Ashcroft, and 2% with ICM.
Telephone polls put the Conservatives 2% ahead, on average. Internet panels have the parties tied.
Presumably all the parties (the big ones anyway) have a pretty strong idea of how things are going without having to refer to the opinion polls.
Brilliant Mail front page today - surely one of their all-time classics.
Such a shame The Times has become just another Tory paper. There are now no national newspapers that are not taking lines directly from the national campaigns of the parties they support. In the last GE The Times was a stand-out for backing the Tories, but not letting that affect its news coverage.
Mike, is it possible that YouGov is more accurate for European elections as turnout is lower, limited to the most politically active, as are panels for online polls; whereas they are less representative of the general election electorate? I also suspect that panel approach leads to more stable poll results than random sampling of the entire electorate.
We don't really know, but bear in mind that YouGov has a large panel, most of whom are not political - people join to contribute opinions on things like "Would you be proud or embarrassed to work for Kelloggs?", presumably because it's money for nothing. It's an observable fact that their polls are more stable, but that's on the whole more likely to be correct than big swings from poll to poll as we've seen with e.g. ICM. I don't think anyone on the ground is detecting major shifts from day to day or even week to week.
The current YG details show a 3-point Labour lead, dampened to 2 by slightly higher Tory certainty to vote. Labour doing well in the Midlands/Wales and North, and badly in the South and Scotland, not especially well in London. A persistent feature of recent days is that Labour has recovered ground among 2010 LibDems (consistently 30+ recently after a dip to the mid-20s previously).
I think there is real evidence of a late English anti Labour - SNP move that has real momentum and has the potential to derail labour south of the Scottish border
This election really boils down to whether people want the SNP running the country or the Tories.
Labour can't come close to winning on their own without Scotland, and Lib Dems won't win nearly enough seats to help them.
Only Conservatives can achieve a high enough number of seats to bring Lib Dems back into play.
We're in uncharted waters if the Conservatives win an overall majority in England and Wales, but a minority Labour government takes office with SNP backing. Which is quite possible, on the Com Res numbers.
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
I agree it's best to average the last 5, or 7 Yougov polls, and treat them as one with the other weekly polls. And, to average the last two Populus polls. In summary, we get Labour leads of 1.5% with Populus, 1% with Yougov, 2% with TNS, 2% with Ipsos Mori, and 3% with Panelbase. We get Conservative leads of 4% with each of Opinium, ComRes, Survation, Ashcroft, and 2% with ICM.
Telephone polls put the Conservatives 2% ahead, on average. Internet panels have the parties tied.
Surely the PB Tory golden rule of polls applies?
The most accurate poll is the one showing Labour in the worst position.
Mike, is it possible that YouGov is more accurate for European elections as turnout is lower, limited to the most politically active, as are panels for online polls; whereas they are less representative of the general election electorate? I also suspect that panel approach leads to more stable poll results than random sampling of the entire electorate.
I struggle to see the point of the daily poll, really. It's been going quite a while now, and hasn't really provided any more insight than a monthly one would. Or am I wrong?
You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the point if you think these polls are produced for insight. That's more of a bonus for us geeks, than anything.
They're produced, primarily, for editorial purposes.
Ed having another crack at one of our advertisers? Look, everyone thinks ed's crap. Even crapper than before. Look at this massive 1% plunge in his approval rating. Can he ever recover? Look how crap he is. Look! Here's a picture of him sitting on the bog in his boxers.
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
I agree it's best to average the last 5, or 7 Yougov polls, and treat them as one with the other weekly polls. And, to average the last two Populus polls. In summary, we get Labour leads of 1.5% with Populus, 1% with Yougov, 2% with TNS, 2% with Ipsos Mori, and 3% with Panelbase. We get Conservative leads of 4% with each of Opinium, ComRes, Survation, Ashcroft, and 2% with ICM.
Telephone polls put the Conservatives 2% ahead, on average. Internet panels have the parties tied.
Surely the PB Tory golden rule of polls applies?
The most accurate poll is the one showing Labour in the worst position.
This was Smithson's Golden Rule of Steamrollers from 2005-2010 where he looked at overstatement of Labour in previous elections and saw a series of data points doing something like 5.5m away, 4.0m away, 2.5m away, 1.0m away and figured that on past performance the steamroller would never it him, and would most likely be about 3.25m away next time.
Although it didn't go well in 2010 (-0.5m, observer squished) this insight is still in Fisher's model for predicting 2015, and maybe some of the others.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
I used to be on the YG panel, but found it so tedious I gave up. I did get a cheque for over £50 out of it though.
The FPTP system is clearly not fit for purpose now that we have a multi-party system and it seems plausible that all the pollsters are struggling with it too. Someone will get the result pretty right because most of the bases are being covered - but that could well end up being more luck than judgement.
When I read the pro-Tory headline, I thought that OGH might not have worn a sunhat in the warm weather. Had he had an unfortunate case of heatstroke?
Then I read the sub-headline and realised normal service had been resumed. ;-)
I don't normally comment either way on the slant of a thread header s they must be difficult to write day after day. However, this one has certainly surpassed itself by pretty much ignoring the recent trends of 4% for the blues (even that is lukewarm) and concentrating solely on the good one for the Reds.
I guess it just comes down to who owns the train set I guess?
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
That is nationalism - Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British, whatever. It feeds off creating enemies, alleging betrayals and fomenting division. The idea you can somehow be a "progressive" or "civic" or "social democratic" nationalist is absurd. It's all about separating people from one another and drawing frontiers.
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
That's right. We hear even veteran commentators like Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo talk about "the polls" as if they are some amorphous whole. This You Gov thing suggests promoting quantity over quality.
Online polls, no matter how cleverly they are weighted, are always 100% of the demographic that is willing to participate in an internet panel. Who knows what the broader significance of that is, but I expect that there is one.
When I read the pro-Tory headline, I thought that OGH might not have worn a sunhat in the warm weather. Had he had an unfortunate case of heatstroke?
Then I read the sub-headline and realised normal service had been resumed. ;-)
I don't normally comment either way on the slant of a thread header s they must be difficult to write day after day. However, this one has certainly surpassed itself by pretty much ignoring the recent trends of 4% for the blues (even that is lukewarm) and concentrating solely on the good one for the Reds.
I guess it just comes down to who owns the train set I guess?
The train set is owned by the yellows, not the reds or blues.
I used to be on the YG panel, but found it so tedious I gave up. I did get a cheque for over £50 out of it though.
The FPTP system is clearly not fit for purpose now that we have a multi-party system and it seems plausible that all the pollsters are struggling with it too. Someone will get the result pretty right because most of the bases are being covered - but that could well end up being more luck than judgement.
It is not just the size of the lead that is all over the place, it is also the absolute percentage: are Con at 36% or 31% Lab on 35% or 29%? The UKIP percentages are all over the place too. Unfortunately the one thing all the pollsters agree on is that the LD vote will be half or less of 2010.
Overall I think Nick Palmers approach is the right one: the national polls are broadly neck and neck with the Tories possibly ahead by a nose.
It is the shrinkgage of the electorate that interests me most. Whether this is the disappearance of vote farming by community leaders or under registration of mobile youngsters, or merely the can't be arsed to vote party not being bothered enough to register.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
In my view, the greatest praise is due to Councillor Peter Golds, who's been highlighting electoral malpractice for ten years, and has had to put up with a ton of abuse for it.
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
The Neil Hay story has been shown to be wildly overblown.
Labour will soon kill it themselves as the counterblast from Wings over Scotland has revealed the ugly side online of British nationalism as exemplified by SLAB unionist trolls.
@paulwaugh: Another Tory source on Med migrant spch: "A few bad polls for Labour after a poor week of campaigning + EdMiliband accuses the PM of murder"
I thought the best front page was the I; it asked the questions I would like the answers to.
I see that my local Conservative candidate for Havant Alan Mak has been accused by Popbitch of some Grant Shapps-style "re-imagining" of his past. Havant MP David Willetts is standing down and the new candidate, Alan Mak, is the son of Chinese immigrants. He has already attracted controversy in that he is not a local candidate; not on ethnic grounds but the fact that he grew up in the north of England and his family business is in Yorkshire.
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years. They made some big mistakes, but the thought of the Tories alone is a chilling one indeed. I'd vote LD if they had a chance in my constituency, and quite possibly if my constituency was not a Labour/Tory marginal. But stopping the Tories is the primary goal, so it's Labour in Leamington for me!
Beware Labour Armageddon: darkies, Scots and unions to take over country.
30 years ago, the Tory slogan would have been "Black, Scot, Lesbian, Disabled and Against the Bomb" about to take over the country. Remember clause 28 ?
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years. They made some big mistakes, but the thought of the Tories alone is a chilling one indeed. I'd vote LD if they had a chance in my constituency, and quite possibly if my constituency was not a Labour/Tory marginal. But stopping the Tories is the primary goal, so it's Labour in Leamington for me!
I think you should vote with your errm true preference in Warwick and Leamington
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
There seems no doubt that Yougov's change in weightings has hurt the Conservatives. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.
Perhaps. Although I think we can be overly led by Yougov, simply because they poll so frequently.
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
That's right. We hear even veteran commentators like Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo talk about "the polls" as if they are some amorphous whole. This You Gov thing suggests promoting quantity over quality.
Online polls, no matter how cleverly they are weighted, are always 100% of the demographic that is willing to participate in an internet panel. Who knows what the broader significance of that is, but I expect that there is one.
No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Careful, aside from the issue of how many legitimate voters have dropped off the register, we're actually talking about several million _entries_ on the electoral register, a lot of which will have been for the same person (eg people who moved, or people who were registered at both university and their parents' house).
Now that Ed has raised his game way beyond what any of us thought possible this election has started to become interesting.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
With every day that passes I am more thankful for the LD presence in government for the last five years. They made some big mistakes, but the thought of the Tories alone is a chilling one indeed. I'd vote LD if they had a chance in my constituency, and quite possibly if my constituency was not a Labour/Tory marginal. But stopping the Tories is the primary goal, so it's Labour in Leamington for me!
I think you should vote with your errm true preference in Warwick and Leamington
I support the anti-Tory party. I do like the LDs though, drspite them getting too cosy with the Tories in the early part of the Coalition. I even have a slightly soft spot for Danny Alexander. That said, I would vote Tory to get rid of David Laws.
Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
Returns in a local government election may only be questioned by way of election petition (Representation of the People Act 1983, s. 127). The petition must be brought by four or more persons entitled to vote in the election (s. 128(1)). The parties to an election petition are obliged to pay the costs of the petition in such manner and proportion as the election court may determine (s. 154(1)).
That is certainly so, as far as it goes.
On a wider view, I daresay there was a very understandable reluctance to do or to condone anything which might turn into a recruiting sergeant for terrorist outfits - and let's be in no doubt that that's what the disqualification of Lutfur Rahman has achieved.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
The void election occurred on 24 May 2014. Much of the conduct the Commissioner found to constitute election offences took place before the election. Proceedings for any offence contrary to the 1983 Act must be instituted within a year of the offence (see section 176(1)). Due to the police's incompetence, it may therefore prove impossible to prosecute anyone for any election offence.
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
The Neil Hay story has been shown to be wildly overblown.
Labour will soon kill it themselves as the counterblast from Wings over Scotland has revealed the ugly side online of British nationalism as exemplified by SLAB unionist trolls.
Er! Are you an SNPer standing for Westminster perchance? Apart from which, the Whinge frae Bath was even stopped working for the Yes campaign because he was too toxic.
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I think that we'll see a convergence in the final few days. They maybe wrong but they'll all be wrong.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Prime Minister After General Election Betting Odds narrowing ever so slightly !
Its exactly the same as it was last night. Laid off Ed a touch. The "gap" as I make it is too big now. Building up some nice green on Boris Johnson etc to be PM after GE now mind...
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I think that we'll see a convergence in the final few days. They maybe wrong but they'll all be wrong.
I am expecting (and yes I have placed my money where my mouth is) that there will be a late, perhaps very late, swing to the Tories. People will prefer Cameron to chaos, if not to anyone or anything else.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Turnout was huge in 1992, and the Conservatives led by 7%, so I doubt it.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
That is nationalism - Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British, whatever. It feeds off creating enemies, alleging betrayals and fomenting division. The idea you can somehow be a "progressive" or "civic" or "social democratic" nationalist is absurd. It's all about separating people from one another and drawing frontiers.
Nonsense. Nationalism is an attempt to unify people. To create a shared bond.
'British' was the deliberate creation of an artificial identity to unify scots/english/welsh/irish into a common identity, and it was very successful.
The deliberate destruction of that identity by HMG pursuing 'multiculturalism', and within Scotland the political attempt by Scottish Labour and the SNP to sow division by painting the scottish Conservative party as english and 'other', will have its own effects.
Breaking that common british bond, and replacing it with another, be that one of nation, or race, or religion etc.
Some pollsters (conceivably all of them) are going to need to do some very hard thinking in the wake of the election. But we don't yet know which ones.
I think that we'll see a convergence in the final few days. They maybe wrong but they'll all be wrong.
There'd have to be methodology changes for that to happen.
Now there have been a few, but there is a massive divergence on the UKIP score which is utterly irreconcilable.
Re Tower Hamlets, I love the swipes that the Judge takes at Tower Hamlets Labour Party (Mike Keith in particular) and professional anti-fascists and anti-racists.
All the polls show the same thing happening in Scotland. It's England that is causing the trouble. We're a small country but five contenders in a FPTP system and very distinct regional voting patterns must be very hard to model for whether on the phone or via the internet.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
That is a fascinating point. I don't think that is affecting the polls as people who either agree to be polled or do online are very likely to be registered. I was in Southampton (Itchen) the other day home of the immigration street tv programme. I was wondering if or who some of the immigrant group s would vote for. There are lots of eastern European s but will they be bothered to vote?
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Turnout was huge in 1992, and the Conservatives led by 7%, so I doubt it.
A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
That is nationalism - Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, British, whatever. It feeds off creating enemies, alleging betrayals and fomenting division. The idea you can somehow be a "progressive" or "civic" or "social democratic" nationalist is absurd. It's all about separating people from one another and drawing frontiers.
Nonsense. Nationalism is an attempt to unify people. To create a shared bond.
'British' was the deliberate creation of an artificial identity to unify scots/english/welsh/irish into a common identity, and it was very successful.
The deliberate destruction of that identity by HMG pursuing 'multiculturalism', and within Scotland the political attempt by Scottish Labour and the SNP to sow division by painting the scottish Conservative party as english and 'other', will have its own effects.
Breaking that common british bond, and replacing it with another, be that one of nation, or race, or religion etc.
You are confusing patriotism with political nationalism.
It is worth reading the judgment that is linked to in the BBC report. It is an excellent piece of work and contains some of the clearest summaries of election law that I have read.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
Several million ?
Yes, about 6.5m have "disappeared".. By far the majority of these are of course people who have just moved house, left University, left the country, died etc etc. But anyone reading that Tower Hamlets judgment and still believes our democracy is immune to the sort of practices that have bedevilled democracy everywhere else since time immemorial is simply deluding themselves.
Why did the polls get it so wrong in 1992? Surely a major factor was that between 1987 and 1992 a large number of people disappeared from the roll as they tried to avoid the poll tax.
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
Turnout was huge in 1992, and the Conservatives led by 7%, so I doubt it.
Turnout was huge in 92 both in percentage and in absolute terms. I remember that election well. Nonetheless a lot of people (particularly the young and highly mobile) had disappeared from the register as a way of evading the poll tax. They could not vote as a result.
I think that as well as shy Tories there were large numbers of people who could not vote against the Tories as they were dodging the Tory tax. Poll taxes are a way of gerrymandering an electorate.
The individual registration is not a poll tax, it is much fairer than that, but its effect on the election may well be similar. Like 92 the effect is more dramatic in a close race.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
The Turks blame western intervention in the Ottoman Empire for the Armenian Genocide. Have we learnt nothing?
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
During the indyref a lot of attention was paid to people's declared likelihood of voting.
I mean information such as "I plan to vote X, but I am only 50-75% likely to vote at all". Or "I plan to vote Y, but I am not certain and I may vote for one of the other parties".
Stats on that were big news in the run-up to the indyref. Why aren't they now?
Is the same information factored into the headline poll results, but those who decide the talking points aren't paying any attention to it?
Or is it not asked and not factored in? Are we back to the stone age of choose a party, WV or DK?
"Er! Are you an SNPer standing for Westminster perchance? Apart from which, the Whinge frae Bath was even stopped working for the Yes campaign because he was too toxic."
Try reading what Wings wrote on the issue. As usual he backs up his comments with evidence, which I guess is why unionists find it so difficult to read-it challenges their irrational and unwarranted prejudices.
Re Tower Hamlets, I love the swipes that the Judge takes at Tower Hamlets Labour Party (Mike Keith in particular) and professional anti-fascists and anti-racists.
Funnily enough, no-one has yet mentioned the BBC Panorama investigation that highlighted so many of the issues. I guess it does not fit the narrative; likewise the role of John Biggs. Oh well.
Comments
YouGov’s methodology ‘tweak’ at the 11th hour, just as the Blue team IIRC started to see repeated leads with them was an unfortunate decision IMHO.
Labour can't come close to winning on their own without Scotland, and Lib Dems won't win nearly enough seats to help them.
Only Conservatives can achieve a high enough number of seats to bring Lib Dems back into play.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
Then I read the sub-headline and realised normal service had been resumed. ;-)
The current YG details show a 3-point Labour lead, dampened to 2 by slightly higher Tory certainty to vote. Labour doing well in the Midlands/Wales and North, and badly in the South and Scotland, not especially well in London. A persistent feature of recent days is that Labour has recovered ground among 2010 LibDems (consistently 30+ recently after a dip to the mid-20s previously).
Another way to look at it might be to take a weekly Yougov average and then compare it to other pollsters that already poll on a weekly basis, which I know some posters already do.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating#!estimate=custom
There was an interesting sub-discussion on here a few weeks ago about the motivations for doing these surveys and the effective chargeable time per hour when one did take part.
i do agree that taking weekly averages is good though
Telephone polls put the Conservatives 2% ahead, on average. Internet panels have the parties tied.
Brilliant Mail front page today - surely one of their all-time classics.
Such a shame The Times has become just another Tory paper. There are now no national newspapers that are not taking lines directly from the national campaigns of the parties they support. In the last GE The Times was a stand-out for backing the Tories, but not letting that affect its news coverage.
The most accurate poll is the one showing Labour in the worst position.
They're produced, primarily, for editorial purposes.
Ed having another crack at one of our advertisers? Look, everyone thinks ed's crap. Even crapper than before. Look at this massive 1% plunge in his approval rating. Can he ever recover? Look how crap he is. Look! Here's a picture of him sitting on the bog in his boxers.
etc etc.
5.5m away, 4.0m away, 2.5m away, 1.0m away
and figured that on past performance the steamroller would never it him, and would most likely be about 3.25m away next time.
Although it didn't go well in 2010 (-0.5m, observer squished) this insight is still in Fisher's model for predicting 2015, and maybe some of the others.
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/kezia-dugdale-wants-tweeting-snp-candidate-sacked-1-3751722
The FPTP system is clearly not fit for purpose now that we have a multi-party system and it seems plausible that all the pollsters are struggling with it too. Someone will get the result pretty right because most of the bases are being covered - but that could well end up being more luck than judgement.
However, this one has certainly surpassed itself by pretty much ignoring the recent trends of 4% for the blues (even that is lukewarm) and concentrating solely on the good one for the Reds.
I guess it just comes down to who owns the train set I guess?
"Brilliant Mail front page today - surely one of their all-time classics.
Such a shame The Times has become just another Tory paper."
Have you got a link to the Mail front page. I could do with seeing something brilliant in it.
I agree with you about the Times. What a pity.But he who pays the piper.....
That's right. We hear even veteran commentators like Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo talk about "the polls" as if they are some amorphous whole. This You Gov thing suggests promoting quantity over quality.
Online polls, no matter how cleverly they are weighted, are always 100% of the demographic that is willing to participate in an internet panel. Who knows what the broader significance of that is, but I expect that there is one.
Overall I think Nick Palmers approach is the right one: the national polls are broadly neck and neck with the Tories possibly ahead by a nose.
It is the shrinkgage of the electorate that interests me most. Whether this is the disappearance of vote farming by community leaders or under registration of mobile youngsters, or merely the can't be arsed to vote party not being bothered enough to register.
The extent of the findings are truly shocking. Eric Pickles was criticised when he sent Commissioners into Tower Hamlets for being heavy handed. He has been completely vindicated.
I did not think my opinion of Ken Livingstone could get any lower but wow, he has managed it again. He said: "Let's wait and see if he is convicted of anything. The decision of the voters to put Lutfur Rahman there shouldn't be overturned by an unelected bureaucrat unless he is arrested."
He is of course ignoring the fact that the level of proof was in general the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again our police seem to be irrelevant bystanders. No doubt all available resources are already committed to the investigation of how several million people who were on our electoral register have now disappeared leaving questions in many cases as to whether they ever existed.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-32442702
Beware Labour Armageddon: darkies, Scots and unions to take over country.
What would help Labour is a poll showing they are making progress in Scotland.
He's still a little timid for my taste (why on earth back away from his justifiable criticism of Cameron's Libyan adventure) but he now at least looks like a leader.
My hope is that all those on the centre left will be enthused enough to vote tactically to rid ourselves of this seriously unpleasant Tory administration. I didn't think this before but they've really shown their true face now they are uncoupled from the Lib Dems.
Without the Libs I think they're terrifying
Labour will soon kill it themselves as the counterblast from Wings over Scotland has revealed the ugly side online of British nationalism as exemplified by SLAB unionist trolls.
"UK PM David Cameron: 'Benghazi inspiration to world'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14933981
@TelePolitics: Election 2015: Ed Miliband says David Cameron to blame for migrant deaths - live http://t.co/iBzlnp0faM
UK retail sales fall in March as fuel purchases slump
UK retail sales fell 0.5% in March from February, dragged down by a 6.2% fall in sales at petrol stations, the Office for National Statistics said.
I see that my local Conservative candidate for Havant Alan Mak has been accused by Popbitch of some Grant Shapps-style "re-imagining" of his past. Havant MP David Willetts is standing down and the new candidate, Alan Mak, is the son of Chinese immigrants. He has already attracted controversy in that he is not a local candidate; not on ethnic grounds but the fact that he grew up in the north of England and his family business is in Yorkshire.
An interesting point made in the comments: Ed is essentially also blaming the U.S. NATO and the UN for failings by association.
Operation Unified Protector was an NATO operation enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 concerning the Libyan Civil War.
Daredevil fight scenes are superb aren't they.
'Without the Libs I think they're terrifying'
Try at least to sound convincing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/24/armenian-genocide-survivors-stories-my-dreams-cannot-mourn
And 100 years on it is being repeated:
https://www.barnabasfund.org/news/New-Islamic-State-video-shows-militants-killing-30-Ethiopian-Christians-in-Libya
We should provide asylum for the victims, but not for their murderers who would do the same here given the chance.
The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else.
In the old days this young man would be a hero !
What do we think the Rockfeller's did ?
On a wider view, I daresay there was a very understandable reluctance to do or to condone anything which might turn into a recruiting sergeant for terrorist outfits - and let's be in no doubt that that's what the disqualification of Lutfur Rahman has achieved.
"I guess it just comes down to who owns the train set I guess?"
Try reading it again. This time from the top> After two readings it strikes me as completely neutral
Where is he anyway ?
There are two Lib Dems signs up on the Hermitage Estate. Hermitage and Knaphill South on Woking = Lib Dem hold.
Rank
1 RNB India: Phone
2 ICM phone/past vote weighted
3 Ipsos-MORI: phone
4 Populus: phone/past vote weighted
5 Harris: Online
6 ComRes: phone/past vote weighted
7 Opinium: online
8 YouGov: online 35
9= Angus Reid: online
9= BPIX: online
9= TNS-BMRB: face to face
12 OnePoll: online
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/
That's right, 5 of the top 6 were phone polls
We may just have seen the same effect again from the new registration process. The polls may well have been right in 1992 if everyone was on the register.
"The people responsible for the migrant deaths are the barbarians of the middle east and north africa and no one else."
A bit simplistic. If a foreign power invades even just by air and contributes to wiping out a countrie's infrastructure to say it bears no responsibility for the ensuing civil strife and chaos is ridiculous. Look at Iraq Vietnam cambodia Laos etc etc.
'British' was the deliberate creation of an artificial identity to unify scots/english/welsh/irish into a common identity, and it was very successful.
The deliberate destruction of that identity by HMG pursuing 'multiculturalism', and within Scotland the political attempt by Scottish Labour and the SNP to sow division by painting the scottish Conservative party as english and 'other', will have its own effects.
Breaking that common british bond, and replacing it with another, be that one of nation, or race, or religion etc.
Now there have been a few, but there is a massive divergence on the UKIP score which is utterly irreconcilable.
It's a little surprising there hasn't been a significant shift in the polling during the course of the campaign.
http://d.gu.com/9WwD6W
99 out of every 100 simulations run by Populus for @FT produces hung parliament, & it says no two-party coalition likely to command majority
Second election likely?
I think that as well as shy Tories there were large numbers of people who could not vote against the Tories as they were dodging the Tory tax. Poll taxes are a way of gerrymandering an electorate.
The individual registration is not a poll tax, it is much fairer than that, but its effect on the election may well be similar. Like 92 the effect is more dramatic in a close race.
The Libyans and Syrians started massacreing each other before Western intervention, not after it.
I mean information such as "I plan to vote X, but I am only 50-75% likely to vote at all". Or "I plan to vote Y, but I am not certain and I may vote for one of the other parties".
Stats on that were big news in the run-up to the indyref. Why aren't they now?
Is the same information factored into the headline poll results, but those who decide the talking points aren't paying any attention to it?
Or is it not asked and not factored in? Are we back to the stone age of choose a party, WV or DK?
"Er! Are you an SNPer standing for Westminster perchance? Apart from which, the Whinge frae Bath was even stopped working for the Yes campaign because he was too toxic."
Try reading what Wings wrote on the issue. As usual he backs up his comments with evidence, which I guess is why unionists find it so difficult to read-it challenges their irrational and unwarranted prejudices.