I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.
"Scraping the barrel"?? Is that what you'd say if a Tory document emerged talking, optimistically and eagerly, of the Scottish economy "imploding"??
Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.
Actually, that is pretty much what the Tories do! Just look at any thread on indyref on PB.
I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis
- get home rule to start with - forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this) - the economy is going to tank (most of us think that) - that is then an opportunity to go for indyref
but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.
"it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well."
Yes, you could put it that way, or you could just admit that an SNP so hates the rest of us British ("the enemy camp") that he eagerly hopes for the UK economy to "implode", so the Scots can then go for full independence.
We can agree to differ - but i do think you are being unfair there: the 'enemy camp' is plainly Westminster (or the L and T parties ensconced therein) - not England or rUK. Quite a difference.
If the enemy camp is Westminster, who then are the enemy?
If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.
That is the other risk for Nicola. If a large number of her new MPs turn out to be bampots on the National stage
Kerevan is a joke, you could expect that kind of writing from an "expletive deleted".
I can easily dismantle his entire statement. What does he mean he can replace the Cockenzie power station with a community and visitor resource rather than more industrialization?
Will tourists generate more electrical power and how? With bicycles that store electricity? No industrialization? No solar plants? No wind power? What will workers do? He is the first socialist that is against factories.
Even the Green party can be more specific and less loonie.
Nobody out-loonies the Green Party, apart from the OMRLP who are doing it on purpose and so don't really count.
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
Canada may get rid of FPTP, once Harper goes. New Zealand, another Westminster Model country, has already abandoned it.
That still leaves the two largest "democracies", India and the US of A....
For different reasons. On the one hand, their party system is so chaotic, PR wouldn't make much difference, except preventing the occasional landslide which happens under FPTP.
On the other, the US system is highly proportional, being as there are only two serious players. PR wouldn't change much, except allowing others to perhaps break through, which neither wants.
I'm not a devotee of individual seats so am not unduly concerned but neither Cannock Chase nor Great Yarmouth are good for the Conservatives - UKIP are taking far more of our share than Labour's.
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
Canada may get rid of FPTP, once Harper goes. New Zealand, another Westminster Model country, has already abandoned it.
That still leaves the two largest "democracies", India and the US of A....
For different reasons. On the one hand, their party system is so chaotic, PR wouldn't make much difference, except preventing the occasional landslide which happens under FPTP.
On the other, the US system is highly proportional, being as there are only two serious players. PR wouldn't change much, except allowing others to perhaps break through, which neither wants.
Points taken, but just sayin': India's BJP won the 2014 election by a landslide with only 31% of the vote...
Someone has jumped the shark. No change since 2010?
So how does this explain Great Grimsby, Cannock Chase, Great Yarmouth ? Is Labour losing votes where it doesn't need them ? Or, is Lord A polls just plain cobblers !
I am glad in a way that the polls are so mixed - it means the Tories can still pump the message that it is a close election and hopefully drag some more undecideds or Kippers over, even though they will likely win the popular vote easily (if not the # of seats)
Either these polling companies results had better converge soon or quite a few of them will be losing their respectability. We have polls to make everyone happy at the moment, even Basil.
I did think that the FTB stamp duty thing from Labour indicated that their private polling was not looking good. Its such a tory type policy and goes against what they had been saying about the boosting house prices (as that is what it will do)
Castle Point These polls have 2 VI questions again.
On Q1, Castle Point is 40% vs 39% before the don't know adjustment.
Q2 is 41% vs 37%.
Still a tie.
UKIP winning the Ground game in Castle Point.
"I would like to ask whether any of the main political parties have contacted you over the last few weeks - whether by delivering leaflets or newspapers, sending personally addressed letters, emailing, telephoning you at home or knocking on your door. Have you heard in any of these ways from...? Base: All respondents"
What is it with the Greens? Their policies and leader are both mental. Can we take it these are lefties unpersuaded by Ed Miliband? Or SNP fifth columnists south of the border?
ICM is a small sample. MOE is 3.9% i.e. 2 standard deviations. Populus is a larger sample. MOE is 2.4%
The two polls can be reconciled by looking at the overlap between the 95% confidence limits on each poll.
ICM shows Con as 31.1% to 38.9%. Populus shows Con as 30.6% to 35.4% The overlap is 31.1% to 35.4% i.e. anything in this range is consistent with the confidence limits of both polls.
ICM shows Lab as 28.1 to 35.9%. Populus shows Lab as 33.6% to 38.4%. The overlap is 33.6% to 35.9%.
The current reality could be anything in those ranges. Taking the mid-points: Con is 33.3%. Lab is 34.7%.
Another part of our business does a lot of work with the EU. A mug has appeared in our kitchen with "Guardian of Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law" on it in a jaunty colourful script, as well as the logo of the Council of Europe, and the same message in French.
Good to know my taxes are well spent. Weighing up whether to ever-so-accidentally knock it off the table...
ICM is a small sample. MOE is 3.9% i.e. 2 standard deviations. Populus is a larger sample. MOE is 2.4%
The two polls can be reconciled by looking at the overlap between the 95% confidence limits on each poll.
ICM shows Con as 31.1% to 38.9%. Populus shows Con as 30.6% to 35.4% The overlap is 31.1% to 35.4% i.e. anything in this range is consistent with the confidence limits of both polls.
ICM shows Lab as 28.1 to 35.9%. Populus shows Lab as 33.6% to 38.4%. The overlap is 33.6% to 35.9%.
The current reality could be anything in those ranges. Taking the mid-points: Con is 33.3%. Lab is 34.7%.
But that's just two polls. All the evidence from recent polling is that there's a fundamental difference in outcome being generated by methodological differences [i.e. one or both of the methods are wrong], so I don't think the basic MOE statistical approach works at all.
ICM is a small sample. MOE is 3.9% i.e. 2 standard deviations. Populus is a larger sample. MOE is 2.4%
The two polls can be reconciled by looking at the overlap between the 95% confidence limits on each poll.
ICM shows Con as 31.1% to 38.9%. Populus shows Con as 30.6% to 35.4% The overlap is 31.1% to 35.4% i.e. anything in this range is consistent with the confidence limits of both polls.
ICM shows Lab as 28.1 to 35.9%. Populus shows Lab as 33.6% to 38.4%. The overlap is 33.6% to 35.9%.
The current reality could be anything in those ranges. Taking the mid-points: Con is 33.3%. Lab is 34.7%.
But that's just two polls. All the evidence from recent polling is that there's a fundamental difference in outcome being generated by methodological differences [i.e. one or both of the methods are wrong], so I don't think the basic MOE statistical approach works at all.
Yes - that is another source of error so the MOEs are even larger. It just shows how misleading a single number from a small sample poll is. One needs to look at quite large ranges - even larger than the ones I'm generating using the basic MOE statistical approach to allow for errors in methodology..
Out of interest, the new Ashcroft national poll has a sample size of 558 and an MOE of 4.1% The confidence limits on Con are 31.9% to 40.1%. On Lab the limits are 25.9% to 34.1%. Either could be in the lead.
If I look at all the limits of the three polls, the confidence limits that are consistent with all three are: Con 31.9% to 35.4% Lab 33.6% to 34.1%
You forget who you are dealing with! Thought you could share a joke as a whimsical snippet of the greater world we live in? These people are not interested! All they want is give give give to them them them. Everyone else is wrong and anyone not continually whining about Scotland getting what it wants must be a lord of the manor West Londoner.
Even their own people voting to retain a magical 400 year old union hasn't stopped them. They will never open their eyes or minds, all they want is self self self.
Comments
EMWNBPM or EISINPM
Llantorysurge?
I don't think now they will get more than 3 seats.
On the other, the US system is highly proportional, being as there are only two serious players. PR wouldn't change much, except allowing others to perhaps break through, which neither wants.
No wonder UKIP are changing their tune a bit...
These polls have 2 VI questions again.
On Q1, Castle Point is 40% vs 39% before the don't know adjustment.
Q2 is 41% vs 37%.
Still a tie.
UKIP winning the Ground game in Castle Point.
"I would like to ask whether any of the main political parties have contacted you over the last few weeks - whether by delivering leaflets or
newspapers, sending personally addressed letters, emailing, telephoning you at home or knocking on your door. Have you heard in any of these ways from...? Base: All respondents"
UKIP 63%, vs Con 53% vs Lab 44%
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Castle-Point-April-2015MONX-Full-tables.pdf
This election is truly weird.
Populus is a larger sample. MOE is 2.4%
The two polls can be reconciled by looking at the overlap between the 95% confidence limits on each poll.
ICM shows Con as 31.1% to 38.9%. Populus shows Con as 30.6% to 35.4%
The overlap is 31.1% to 35.4% i.e. anything in this range is consistent with the confidence limits of both polls.
ICM shows Lab as 28.1 to 35.9%. Populus shows Lab as 33.6% to 38.4%.
The overlap is 33.6% to 35.9%.
The current reality could be anything in those ranges.
Taking the mid-points: Con is 33.3%. Lab is 34.7%.
Black Monday for Labour.
Good to know my taxes are well spent. Weighing up whether to ever-so-accidentally knock it off the table...
Whatever a Lord Ashcroft National Poll is, the one thing it is not is a Lord Ashcroft National Poll.
May2015 Election @May2015NS
Ukip fading in key seats—& Lab doing better than thought. @LordAshcroft seat polls paint diff pic to his 6pt headline
Out of interest, the new Ashcroft national poll has a sample size of 558 and an MOE of 4.1%
The confidence limits on Con are 31.9% to 40.1%.
On Lab the limits are 25.9% to 34.1%. Either could be in the lead.
If I look at all the limits of the three polls, the confidence limits that are consistent with all three are:
Con 31.9% to 35.4%
Lab 33.6% to 34.1%
Midpoints Con 33.6% Lab 33.8%.
Is anyone the wiser?
You forget who you are dealing with! Thought you could share a joke as a whimsical snippet of the greater world we live in? These people are not interested! All they want is give give give to them them them. Everyone else is wrong and anyone not continually whining about Scotland getting what it wants must be a lord of the manor West Londoner.
Even their own people voting to retain a magical 400 year old union hasn't stopped them.
They will never open their eyes or minds, all they want is self self self.