Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
Tour de force analysis at Open Democracy. Make a cuppa - it's a meaty 10 minute read. His conclusion's in the URL but never mind that - he has many chunky points of significant (imo) detail on, e.g., McVey et al implications. Much of it is familiar ground for PB-ers but there's something juicy for everyone (except Ed.) Inter alia: 'Labour PLP do not want office right now even if Ed does.' (Wild paraphrase by me.)
@steve_hawkes: SNP has now suspended two people caught up in yesterday's scuffle with Jim Murphy... Sturgeon holds to line that nothing to do with them
Never two without three. The third Nat activist/ street thug will be out soon.
@steve_hawkes: SNP has now suspended two people caught up in yesterday's scuffle with Jim Murphy... Sturgeon holds to line that nothing to do with them
Deja vu - just like the Cons haven't targeted Farage, Lab now see that Saint Nicola is beyond reproach - so go after the activists and the fringites - toxify the party one by one until the mud sticks.
Of course to work, the nutters have to be there - and just like Ukip they are ..
I don't buy the Ashcroft poll. Seven points for the Greens is too high, and I don't think the two major parties will, combined, score that low a share of the vote.
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
That's two SNP members suspended after SLab's haranguing of Murphy and Izzard yesterday. I blame MI5.
Seems second person was at a protest against Brown today and not involved yesterday. Some press getting confused so I guess that's why you're making the mistake.
Leaving aside the obvious references to hell freezing over, what has to happen for Lab to hit the magic majority number? Assuming they retain 5 in Scotland and LD down to 20 (probably the best real world numbers they could hope for), what's the necessary swing from Tories in E&W to get there?
about 6.5% ?
So if the polls are understating Labour to the degree that the Tory 300+ brigade believe they are understanding the Tories, that would be a Labour majority, right?
That's two SNP members suspended after SLab's haranguing of Murphy and Izzard yesterday. I blame MI5.
Seems second person was at a protest against Brown today and not involved yesterday. Some press getting confused so I guess that's why you're making the mistake.
The Channel 4 show "meet the cybernats" can only be 10 months away...
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
I haven't done statistics for a long while BUT what do you think the odds of getting a fair representation of those 3% is in a single poll.
Be interesting to see if ICM follow this trend tomorrow. So far it looks like the parties are actually becoming more deadlocked, rather than any kind of surge. But still, there's time for late Tory surge (because of EdStone after all).
@MSmithsonPB: LAB lead down from 6 to 2 in final Ashcroft poll
Might want to check that Mike
CON Lead down from 6% to 2% surely. EICIPM.
One thing I tell you, none of the pollsters or punters know if any degree of certainty what the final percentage spread will be or, indeed, the seats translation from that.
Scotland is ironically easier. It's in England where UKIP has created mayhem. No one really knows what the vote distribution in each seat will be as there is no similar legacy history.
Pollsters, if they believe in prayers, are doing exactly that hoping the music stops at them.
@LadPolitics: Could Alex Salmond be in trouble? One Aberdonian has just had £3,000 on the Lib Dems to win Gordon at 5/1. Latest odds 1/6 #snp 7/2 #libdems
The Greens are on 17% with 18-24 year olds. This is the demographic that told the pollsters they would vote Lib Dem in 2010 and largely didn't bother. They won't turn up to vote, for the Green Party or otherwise, so though I agree that the Green Party score should be knocked down a bit, Labour will not see the advantage to them.
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
I haven't done statistics for a long while BUT what do you think the odds of getting a fair representation of those 3% is in a single poll.
Sorry but the Sheffield Hallam result was clearly statistically different when you name the candidates. A single question naming the candidates with no prior questions, simply is the best approach.
And only ICM has done it in Hallam. If any pollsters are listening it clearly is the best method.
You vote for "Candidate ABC of XYZ Constituency" at the polling booth, not an individual candidate or an individual party.
I must admit that even those papers coming out for Labour are sort of saying "Well I don't think much of them but I think I have to..." There just seems to be an overall feeling that they won't do it.
Obviously this is great news for the SNP and the cause of Scottish Independence
First mistake they've made.
It gives credence to the bogus pseudo-false flag operation McTernan ran yesterday. It keeps it in the news an extra day (probably only the Scottish news, we'll see),
Utter stupidity.
"This sort of aggressive nationalism should have no place in our election.
"We've got a few days until we can kick David Cameron out of office, " Murphy.
@LadPolitics: Could Alex Salmond be in trouble? One Aberdonian has just had £3,000 on the Lib Dems to win Gordon at 5/1. Latest odds 1/6 #snp 7/2 #libdems
And Aberdonians are very careful with their money.. Eck's rejection would be a moment of exquisite bliss.
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
And that 3% (and I don't believe its that high) consists of the candidates, local activists, councillors 75% of the candidates wives, one or two of their kids. And the geeks that go on PB. None of which are going to change the way they vote any time soon.
The most interesting thing from Lord Ashcroft's focus group was about the possibility of Labour coming second and wanting to govern:
One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be.
The only thing I might take from these polls is to back low turnout at <70%.
With the choices so poor, and the outcome so uncertain with the media trumpeting that it'll be decided through post-election deals anyway, I think a lot of people simply won't bother voting.
The Greens won't get 7% in an election. I think Labour may benefit somewhat, by about 1-2% but not more. The majority of the Green vote simply won't turn up, which is sad because I wish more people in my age group would go out and vote.
I've no feel for how the LDs are going to do - their polling remains dire. I expected them to bob back to c15%. But that's simply a gut-reaction based on previous votes..
Naff puntastic unauthorised posters competition - "Use your loaf - vote Baker" Just coming in to Ringmer (Lewes). As an aside - The tory candidate here must wish she was contesting Charles Hendry's old seat next door; that onerous task is given to a certain Nus Ghani.
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
I haven't done statistics for a long while BUT what do you think the odds of getting a fair representation of those 3% is in a single poll.
Sorry but the Sheffield Hallam result was clearly statistically different when you name the candidates. A single question naming the candidates with no prior questions, simply is the best approach.
And only ICM has done it in Hallam. If any pollsters are listening it clearly is the best method.
You vote for "Candidate ABC of XYZ Constituency" at the polling booth, not an individual candidate or an individual party.
Thats a poor example even the cats in Sheffield Hallam know Nick Clegg.
The most interesting thing from Lord Ashcroft's focus group was about the possibility of Labour coming second and wanting to govern:
One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be.
Just been Yougov'ed again and asked about my vote. Still the same as last week.
It's almost as if* they ask the same 330 confirmed tory voters and 330 confirmed labour voters the same question at the same time every day. Then we start to get the same feeling of mild excitement the same time (10.29pm) every day, followed by the same sense of anti-climax (10.31pm) every day.
Polls Schmolls.
* I appreciate it is very much more scientific than this.
The most interesting thing from Lord Ashcroft's focus group was about the possibility of Labour coming second and wanting to govern:
One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be.
After a few days split between a northern Lab/Con marginal and a southern Con/ Lib marginal, for me it feels we have 4 key 'pots' of voters that will determine the outcome.
1. About 25% of the UKIP voters are toying with voting Conservative- SNP, economy, EdM are making them think hard 2. Labour voters who didn't vote last time and who may or may not vote this time 3. Labour voters who don't like Edm -They may stay at home, vote green or even a few vote tory 4 Labour voters who have lent their votes to the lib dem over the last few years. A number of these are unsure who they vote for this time
The first 3 will determine the outcome and the 4th will decide a number of Con/ Lib marginal- I guess in 54hrs we will know the answer to the puzzle.
This was the most telling part for me. Many voters deciding Ed wasn't quite so crap anyway:
Er, moving on… for those who were paying attention, who had done well? “The woman was brilliant. The one with the red suit on.” But several participants also said Ed Miliband had been a revelation, not just in the debates but throughout the campaign. “They’ve managed expectations about him and suddenly he looks like a Prime Minister. They never stopped going on about the bacon sandwich incident until it kicked off, and now he’s like a different person.” Even his encounter with Russell Brand had been “brave”. Many still had their doubts, however: “Some of the things he says are quite good but I don’t think they’re going to happen”; “He’s quite emotive and sensitive and speaks from the heart, but whether being emotive and sensitive is right for a PM or not, I don’t know”; “He can’t really represent Labour, let alone the UK. They will walk all over him.”
But few of those already leaning towards Labour said they saw Miliband as a major barrier: “He gets a hard time and he’s an easy target. But if he got to be Prime Minister I could live with it.”
Only because Ashcroft has spent an enormous sum of money on his polling and if it turns out not to be all that accurate we might never see the like again.
1 Question - name the candidates. That is all.
You can do it unnamed before they're known but after - simply name them.
Jeesus do you really think people know the candidates. Naming them would just confuse the f*ck out of people. I would guess 99% of people don't even know the name of their MP or their constituency.
If it makes no difference in 97% of cases, it makes no difference. But the 3% may well count.
I haven't done statistics for a long while BUT what do you think the odds of getting a fair representation of those 3% is in a single poll.
Sorry but the Sheffield Hallam result was clearly statistically different when you name the candidates. A single question naming the candidates with no prior questions, simply is the best approach.
And only ICM has done it in Hallam. If any pollsters are listening it clearly is the best method.
You vote for "Candidate ABC of XYZ Constituency" at the polling booth, not an individual candidate or an individual party.
Thats a poor example even the cats in Sheffield Hallam know Nick Clegg.
And when he isn't named, he is BEHIND.
Everyone and their dog SHOULD know Clegg is the Lib Dem PPC for Hallam. Those answering the poll all probably do so. But when he is named, some will switch their answer to him. My guess is it'd be the same at the ballot box. When he isn't named they'll answer Conservative, even though they know "Nick Clegg" is standing.
I agree - It really, really shouldn't be the case. But it is. @JackW is quite right on this matter.
That's two SNP members suspended after SLab's haranguing of Murphy and Izzard yesterday. I blame MI5.
Seems second person was at a protest against Brown today and not involved yesterday. Some press getting confused so I guess that's why you're making the mistake.
No, he was there yesterday too. He was in the photo I posted and you said was "desperate stuff". But I do accept you truly believe otherwise.
One thing strikes me which is obvious - the inherent uncertainty in the measurement is bigger than the thing being measured. Surely almost nothing can be concluded with any confidence from any of the polling.
@LadPolitics: Could Alex Salmond be in trouble? One Aberdonian has just had £3,000 on the Lib Dems to win Gordon at 5/1. Latest odds 1/6 #snp 7/2 #libdems
And Aberdonians are very careful with their money.. Eck's rejection would be a moment of exquisite bliss.
It certainly would. I would relish that one.
He might still make it to Westminster - guest contributor on This Week, for example?
In hindsight, the October conferences were poor for the Tories. Ed bombing with his leader's speech made people believe he truly was crap, forgetting the deficit and immigration, and they got complacent about that.
They truly didn't expect him to bounce back from that. And he did and he has.
This was the most telling part for me. Many voters deciding Ed wasn't quite so crap anyway:
Er, moving on… for those who were paying attention, who had done well? “The woman was brilliant. The one with the red suit on.” But several participants also said Ed Miliband had been a revelation, not just in the debates but throughout the campaign. “They’ve managed expectations about him and suddenly he looks like a Prime Minister. They never stopped going on about the bacon sandwich incident until it kicked off, and now he’s like a different person.” Even his encounter with Russell Brand had been “brave”. Many still had their doubts, however: “Some of the things he says are quite good but I don’t think they’re going to happen”; “He’s quite emotive and sensitive and speaks from the heart, but whether being emotive and sensitive is right for a PM or not, I don’t know”; “He can’t really represent Labour, let alone the UK. They will walk all over him.”
But few of those already leaning towards Labour said they saw Miliband as a major barrier: “He gets a hard time and he’s an easy target. But if he got to be Prime Minister I could live with it.”
In hindsight, the October conferences were poor for the Tories. Ed bombing with his leader's speech made people believe he truly was crap, forgetting the deficit and immigration, and they got complacent about that.
They truly didn't expect him to bounce back from that. And he did and he has.
@LadPolitics: Could Alex Salmond be in trouble? One Aberdonian has just had £3,000 on the Lib Dems to win Gordon at 5/1. Latest odds 1/6 #snp 7/2 #libdems
And Aberdonians are very careful with their money.. Eck's rejection would be a moment of exquisite bliss.
If he is married then he is getting the frying pan on his crown when the wife squeals and hisses " How much?"
@LadPolitics: Could Alex Salmond be in trouble? One Aberdonian has just had £3,000 on the Lib Dems to win Gordon at 5/1. Latest odds 1/6 #snp 7/2 #libdems
And Aberdonians are very careful with their money.. Eck's rejection would be a moment of exquisite bliss.
The Lib Dems swore blind they had beaten Salmond for the Scottish parliament election in 2007 even after the polls closed.
Comments
Ashcroft National Poll, 1-3 May: CON 32%, LAB 30%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 7%. Details (and focus group report) on @ConHome, 4pm.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/shaun-lawson/polls-and-most-of-forecasts-are-wrong-ed-miliband-will-not-be-next-prime-min
The third Nat activist/ street thug will be out soon.
I guess, though, that post-No 10, Dave may not feel so inclined to holiday in the West Country or profess to supporting Weston Villaham.....
Of course to work, the nutters have to be there - and just like Ukip they are ..
I don't buy the Ashcroft poll. Seven points for the Greens is too high, and I don't think the two major parties will, combined, score that low a share of the vote.
@MSmithsonPB: LAB lead down from 6 to 2 in final Ashcroft poll
Might want to check that Mike
Greens on 7? Nah.
EICIPM.
Would be seismic if those were the actual shares!
EICIPM!
One thing I tell you, none of the pollsters or punters know if any degree of certainty what the final percentage spread will be or, indeed, the seats translation from that.
Scotland is ironically easier. It's in England where UKIP has created mayhem. No one really knows what the vote distribution in each seat will be as there is no similar legacy history.
Pollsters, if they believe in prayers, are doing exactly that hoping the music stops at them.
1/6 #snp
7/2 #libdems
Which I am praying for.
What an awful and defunct political system and choice we in the UK now have.
This week (3 polls)
Con -4
Lab +1
UKIP -1
LD +4
GREEN NC
All Time (36 polls from 11 pollsters since April 20th)
Con -2
Lab -13
UKIP +4
LD+1
GREEN +1
Conservatives - (37%) - 304
Labour - (32%) - 250
Lib Dem - (10%) - 24
UKIP - (12%) - 3
Green - (4%) - 1
SNP - 46
Others - 19 (NI + Galloway)
And only ICM has done it in Hallam. If any pollsters are listening it clearly is the best method.
You vote for "Candidate ABC of XYZ Constituency" at the polling booth, not an individual candidate or an individual party.
"We've got a few days until we can kick David Cameron out of office, " Murphy.
Anyone spot the hypocrisy?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595570909743816705
You can't get more NOTA than the Greens.
Eck's rejection would be a moment of exquisite bliss.
Just been Yougov'ed again and asked about my vote. Still the same as last week.
One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be.
Disaster if Miliband tries it
With the choices so poor, and the outcome so uncertain with the media trumpeting that it'll be decided through post-election deals anyway, I think a lot of people simply won't bother voting.
Thats an EICIPM swing IMO
Most seats on a knife edge Glad i am not on at 1/5
Many thanx
3% = 1m votes.
Polls Schmolls.
* I appreciate it is very much more scientific than this.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/05/ashcroft-national-poll-con-32-lab-30-lib-dem-11-ukip-12-green-7/
1. About 25% of the UKIP voters are toying with voting Conservative- SNP, economy, EdM are making them think hard
2. Labour voters who didn't vote last time and who may or may not vote this time
3. Labour voters who don't like Edm -They may stay at home, vote green or even a few vote tory
4 Labour voters who have lent their votes to the lib dem over the last few years. A number of these are unsure who they vote for this time
The first 3 will determine the outcome and the 4th will decide a number of Con/ Lib marginal- I guess in 54hrs we will know the answer to the puzzle.
Er, moving on… for those who were paying attention, who had done well? “The woman was brilliant. The one with the red suit on.” But several participants also said Ed Miliband had been a revelation, not just in the debates but throughout the campaign. “They’ve managed expectations about him and suddenly he looks like a Prime Minister. They never stopped going on about the bacon sandwich incident until it kicked off, and now he’s like a different person.” Even his encounter with Russell Brand had been “brave”. Many still had their doubts, however: “Some of the things he says are quite good but I don’t think they’re going to happen”; “He’s quite emotive and sensitive and speaks from the heart, but whether being emotive and sensitive is right for a PM or not, I don’t know”; “He can’t really represent Labour, let alone the UK. They will walk all over him.”
But few of those already leaning towards Labour said they saw Miliband as a major barrier: “He gets a hard time and he’s an easy target. But if he got to be Prime Minister I could live with it.”
The opinion pollsters need to get the date of the election shifted in future years or they are going to get hammered election after election.
Everyone and their dog SHOULD know Clegg is the Lib Dem PPC for Hallam. Those answering the poll all probably do so. But when he is named, some will switch their answer to him. My guess is it'd be the same at the ballot box. When he isn't named they'll answer Conservative, even though they know "Nick Clegg" is standing.
I agree - It really, really shouldn't be the case. But it is. @JackW is quite right on this matter.
He might still make it to Westminster - guest contributor on This Week, for example?
Tories on 2% in Scotland.
Last three weeks the Tories have been 34,36,32. Pick the middle.
The E+W regional swings are 2.6 or lower in the last couple of weeks.
They truly didn't expect him to bounce back from that. And he did and he has.
They've put yesterdays pseudo-False Flag back in the news.
OK, where's my coat.