Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The YouGov poll at this point in the 2010 race got the CON-
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The YouGov poll at this point in the 2010 race got the CON-LAB margin almost exactly right – should we be expecting the same of the latest poll?
After a spate of 1% LAB or CON leads the latest YouGov Sun poll breaks the pattern – level pegging
CON 33
LAB 33
LD 10
UKIP 12
GRN 5
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What OGH also neglects to mention was that the Lib Dems were 5 points out (23 act vs 28 poll).....
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
#UKIP % scores in Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week, split into Phone polls and Online polls. Updated for 1st May
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595410889030946816
"Of all the Scottish posters to ban, Easteross wouldn't have been on my list, let alone at the top of it (and no, I don't believe in banning posters unless they flout house rules or are abusive, so someone I can think of must be through at least 15 of their 9 lives.....) "
I think accusing pollsters or experts of bad faith is as bad as it gets. For a site where accuracy is everything and where we benefit from so much expertise both within and without the one constant must be trust in the integrity of the pollsters and psephologists.
It's a regret that the Telegraph aren't as scrupulous or we might be spared Dan Hodges daily drivel
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
150 minutes
....................................................
The eve of poll SUPER ARSE has been advanced one hour to 9pm on Wednesday
And then, in my opinion, move on again. My biggest concern about Yougov this time around is that in many ways they are victims of their own success. Last time they had a large and new enough panel to be broadly representative which had not been exhausted by daily polling month after month after month.
We have had posters on here who have said that they have completed 3 or even 6 polls recently. One admires the perseverance of such posters whose political geekism marks them out as being in no way typical of the average Brit. We have also seen disproportionate numbers watching the debates and generally having an awareness that an election is on. I fear that their panel has become dominated by political partisans who will not change their position no matter what resulting in almost no movement.
The results are only 2 days away but I am fairly sure that they will show that this persistent tie (within MoE) that Yougov have given us for weeks now is not accurate. I expect the Tories to get the most votes. Whether this will be by enough to give them the most seats is harder to call. The answer would clearly have been no but for Scotland but now I expect it to be really close which makes the 80% probability on Betfair and the 25 seat lead on SPIN look out of line to me.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_498606
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 73 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.
Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various models (with movement from last month)
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
I think he had previously advocated the L&N model which is now seriously out of step. What is clear, I think, is that models based on traditional swingback have completely failed this time out. One only needs to look at what Fisher was forecasting a few months ago to what he is forecasting now.
The reasons for this have been discussed at length but it seems reasonably obvious that the factors include:
The FTPA
The bias from previous results arising when the governing party thought they were on the up.
The failure of Tory support to collapse through the Parliament making the opportunities for swing back less.
In particular the almost total absence of Lab/Tory switchers.
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086-salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are-paying?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/whenwhatgoesdowndoesntcomeup
It looks like there is lot more to it than Polish builders and Slovakian barmaids. Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.
The problem was with models like Fisher's based on swing-back from opinion polls. These don't work well because opinion polls are always getting tweaked with the hope of better predicting elections, so the models try to fix things that have already been fixed. As a lot of people here said at the time, Fisher's was particularly nuts because half of polls whose bias his model was correcting for came from pre-1992, when pollsters got knocked on their collective arses and had a serious re-think.
"In will probably win because Out isn't quite sure exactly what it wants.
If Out was EFTA/EEA, then I think it would gain significant support from business, and would be able to say "We want to be like Norway/Switzerland".
My thoughts precisely. I don't know quite what Out are playing at.
If they want to win in 2017, they need to be forming a cross-party group *now* with a clear post-EU goal, and campaign relentlessly for it for the next two years.
Otherwise In will win. Comfortably. I'd say 60-40.
(PS. The plus side of a strong Out campaign, even for pro-EU reformers, is that such pressure would probably put even more steel into the EU-UK government negotiations, as they realised Out was a perfectly credible and possible outcome)
The mystery remains why one Scot can do this repeatedly ("Unionist lickspittle" was one of the kinder ones) and carry on posting, another not....
Ed will fix it!
Starting Friday.......
Let's face it, we all wind each other up on here at times. And some of us get close to crossing the line, particularly when there are big issues at stake.
When boundaries are crossed, the individual concerned should be big enough to apologise, recognise where they might have gone wrong, and, after a period of time, for that apology to be accepted by those transgressed, and the hosts, so we can all act like grown-ups and move on.
What they are for is a lot less clear.
We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
I'm not sure that a relatively high minimum wage is a good thing. As the article says, minimum wages create unemployment. Higher minimum wages create higher unemployment.
One of my reservations about a model based on by elections is that there are so few of them these days.
I don't think I agree with rcs1000 on the tactics here; The biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is a big blank canvas that people can project whatever contradictory things they want onto.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11582077/Nicola-Sturgeon-UK-Government-illegitimate-without-Scottish-support.html
Let us hope that OGH didn't put on the PB black cap but rather has sent @Easterross to the cells to cool down for his contempt of court.
A permanent political death to ConHome must count as cruel and unusual punishment which OGH as a fully fledged sandal-ista would of course be totally against.
That is, someone who is not a member of a major political party, and is preferably even on the left (someone like Alan Sked)
I don't think a campaign led by Farage (or a similar polarising figure) will get over 50 per cent of the vote. In fact, I don't think it would even get over 30 per cent of the vote.
They are also (like AV) a way of kicking an unpopular government (or at least the LD part of it) rather than grappling with the real issue at hand.
And were ground down by simple pragmatic things like 'currency'......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32585930
For reducing unemployment (the closest he gets to wages) subsidising new hires of long-term unemployed is apparently better than subsidising low wages (tax credits/personal allowance).
YouGov asked the EU in/out question today.
Referendum (vs mid Apr)
In: 45 (-)
Out: 33 (-20
Referendum post David Cameron deal:
In: 56 (-1)
Out: 20 (-2)
And for a final time of asking - who is to blame for the cuts:
Current Coalition: 30 (+2)
Prev Lab govt: 38 (+2)
So, Labour narrowed the gap from double digits to high single digits, but never closed the gap, let alone reversed it.....
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/avpu0igaec/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-040515.pdf
I have just laid no overall majority at Betfair at 1.09, one of the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen in a betting market. (The mid-price, 1.085, gives an implied probability of 8% for an absolute majority. Well they did say gambling is a mug's game! I am happy to risk £90 to gain £1000 if CON or LAB get an absolute majority.)
That 2am Betfair price on a Tory plurality, which is the same now at 8am) - I make the implied probability 83%, not 80%. 1/1.205 = 0.830 to 3 s.f.
Hope Mr. Easterross and certain others who have departed might return.
Still undecided over how to follow the election (ie when to start viewing, whether to have a siesta and go from 10pm onwards, or go to bed and try to get up around 2am and so forth).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/the-trials-of-david-cameron
"Fresh evidence has emerged that authorities in Rotherham were warned about child sexual exploitation in 2003 and again in 2006.
Police and council officials took no action despite being told organised gangs were grooming and abusing girls.
Ex-South Yorkshire Police drugs analyst Angie Heal said she "cannot fathom" why her reports did not lead to action."
Dr Heal is about the only in the country who doesn't know why. But it's yesterday's news, now gone and forgotten.
Last time I got in Pink Champagne was in 1992.....and that turned out alright in the end.....
Be patient my followers, the ARSE will be revealed in its full splendour very shortly.
Sadly, as you imply no-one is able to do anything seems to care.
The reporting error would be bigger even than it is in the non-meta polls, but still.
That polls do have such a big influence - the "8 out of 10 owners say their cats prefer it" factor - works against healthy conscious discussion and consideration. No surprise that they are banned for a period before elections in some countries.
Angus Reid made a massive horlicks of the polling last time - does that mean it's their turn to be right?
Regarding questions on Austerity (cuts), it is noticeable that 48% say it is good for the economy and 58% say it is necessary.
40% say that Austerity (cuts) has not had an "impact on my life" whilst a further 15% are DK - so really 55% have not noticed any effect.
Do this explain the new Approval of -8?
Is it based on a computer model, on soundings from activists, on private polling ?
I don’t expect you to moon.
But, I would be interested to know in general terms how you got your ARSE?
Yes, I can understand the restriction on not accuse pollsters of fixing their methodologies to meet an agenda (they are, after all, businesses & that is probably a libelous claim). But surely that - at worst - 24 hours in the sin bin rather than a ban?
Where the PMs hung on to the end, it was BECAUSE the government was bereft of ideas and unlikely to be re-elected. They weren't dismissed because they held on to the end.
I don't know anything about anywhere except the East Midlands, but Labour is quite confident here, and has not given up even in Loughorough, where Morgan's lead in Ashcroft looked convincing. This will test the theory that ground game makes a significant difference - the disparity in numbers of activists is glaring on the ground here (except when there's a visiting busload, a typical Tory day has 10ish canvassers to Labour's 50ish), and the question is how much difference that makes.
I think it depends on overall turnout - if nearly everyone vaguely interested votes in marginals, it won't; if the rather lacklustre canmpaign depresses interest, it probably will. My guess is that turnout will be similar to last time but slightly down - I'm meeting a moderate number of people who say they find the campaigns "confusing" and can't settle on a clear preference, and I suspect most of those won't vote.
If you offer half a dozen predictive models, like Rod, it wouldn't be too surprising if one of them is right, but he did seem to favour L&N, whose 9.7% Tory lead looks rather unlikely. What was especially silly about it was its % certainty figures, which assigned 0% certainty two years out to reasonably plausible outcomes, whereas 0% literally means "impossible". Pooh.
http://businessforbritain.org/
I can get you an invite to one of their events if you want.
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model."
I found this on the thread you directed me to dated December. Were you being sarcastic?
RodCrosby
All to play for [for the Tories, Labour are already sunk]. If the Ashcroft movement since August is repeated between now and polling day, there will be a small overall swing TO the Tories, compared to 2010...
Flag Quote
I'm sure he's right.
Essentially the ARSE combines a group of economic, social and demographic data both nationally and on a constituency basis. Added to this is a mass of polling VI information, that is weighted according to previous pollster performance and other factors such as potential for differential turnout, leadership ratings and incumbency in a group of seats. A further input are the actual results from recent elections and lastly I apply the ARSE filter.
Secondly because even if this poll is right, there are still two days to go.
Thirdly because the seats don't all swing uniformly - some will go Lab by quite a lot more than the average, and some by less, even to the point of swinging in the opposite direction.
Selective interpretation, anyone?
The answer is no, though. When the self-selected samples disagree with the random ones, it's not a difficult decision.
This is uncalled for and should be deleted.
Here is a famous example, courtesy of Dick Feynman,
"Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that."
Sorry I've now understood. Ignore my last post.
The £200bn economic bombshell lurking in the Labour Party’s manifesto
Ed Miliband's commitment to set a legal target for decarbonising the UK power sector by 2030 is likely to cost upwards of £200bn, according to analysis conducted by the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11582173/The-200bn-economic-bombshell-lurking-in-the-Labour-Partys-manifesto.html
Any views on Cameron's heart not being quite in it, and the possibility he might not be too unhappy at letting miliband have a stab at leading a weak and unstable government?
Is there a point where some tories might secretly hope that if they aren't going to clearly win, they might prefer to narrowly lose as next best?
Brother and sister in law thinking of voting tactically for labour in ed south. Ian Murray had done as good job with sorting out our local park my brother says! I'm desperately trying to dissuade them following the advice of rifkind and forsythe. They're yesterday's failed scots tories. Why anyone should listen to them is beyond me!