politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking back to those final GE15 phone polls one thing stan

SystemSystem Posts: 11,707
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking back to those final GE15 phone polls one thing stands out about LAB backers…

The British Polling Council inquiry into what went wrong with the GE15 is well under way and no doubt many will be putting forward theories about what caused them to be so wrong.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    Lazy Labour voters.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.

    http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,148
    This was pointed out here at the time though....
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    This is undoubtedly part of the answer. But looking at likelihood to vote and methods for reallocating refusers will surely only get the pollsters some of the way there, if some people are saying one thing but - consciously or otherwise - intending to do another.

    I'm quite persuaded of the merits of priming questions being asked first as that American firm (can't recall name) does.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Maybe they should weight by age-group to the actual turnout by age-group at the previous election.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Much more interesting stat
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Maybe they should weight by age-group to the actual turnout by age-group at the previous election.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I quite agree - like the National Lottery - you've got to be in it, to win it.
    Tissue_Price said:

    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,148
    Did we get to the bottom of which pollsters exclude those who are not 100% certain they are actually registered to vote?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Lazy Labour voters.

    Perhaps they weren't lazy - perhaps they were just too thick to realise that they had to turn up and vote for it too count. The fact that they indicated a preference for Ed Miliband to be PM would support that they were deficient in the IQ dept.




  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,994
    OTOH, the same was true of UKIP voters, and the polls were correct for UKIP.

    Perhaps UKIP really did re-engage former non-voters, while Labour didn't.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    ICM and Ipsos Mori in particular still have questions to answer whether any changes took place in how their final polls were conducted or interpreted? Were they concerned that they might be out of kilter with their on-line rivals, particularly YouGov?

    Why can't either organisation respond with a simple yes or no?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,148
    I'm quite prepared to believe that there is a wider support for Labour than they deliver at the polls. Labour is likely to be the party more closely identified with by those who are counter-cultural, who are "against the system, man..."

    Unfortunately for them, "the system" requires them to put a cross in the box.

    Stuffed.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,791
    FPT:
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    The SNP are complaining about a 'Tory Veto' in the Scotland Bill - do they mean this? ... Seems reasonable enough to me.....file under 'good governance' vs 'I'll do it if I want to!'

    Clause 25 of the Bill is a tortuous provision. How can the same statutory power (Social Security Administration Act 1992, s. 5(1)(i)) be exercisable in Scotland by both governments at the same time? Bear in mind that where an Act of Parliament confers a power to make regulations, it includes an implied power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under that power (Interpretation Act 1978, s. 14). So clause 25 of the Bill would appear to allow the Scottish Ministers to amend or revoke legislation made by the Secretary of State under s. 5(1)(i) of the 1992 Act, and vica versa, which is a recipe for chaos if the two governments disagree about what the content of the regulations ought to be. "Tory veto" or not, that clause should be not able to withstand serious parliamentary scrutiny (which will likely be absent).
    Surely the purpose of the clause is to stop Scottish Ministers legislating for 'free unicorns for all' (or some such) given much of the administrative infrastructure is shared, and working out who gets free unicorns and how they would be delivered might impose significant costs on non-Scottish tax payers?
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited May 2015
    MarqueeMark said:

    I'm quite prepared to believe that there is a wider support for Labour than they deliver at the polls. Labour is likely to be the party more closely identified with by those who are counter-cultural, who are "against the system, man..."

    Unfortunately for them, "the system" requires them to put a cross in the box.

    Stuffed.

    Remaining sober enough to switch off the the taxpayer funded TV, and rise from one's subsidised armchair to actually leave the house and vote, is clearly a step too far for many.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,148
    Tissue_Price said:

    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
    Be quite a bun-fight to see who gets to represent Labour for the Manchester seat; the Liverpool seat; the Newcastle seat.....
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    If an adjustment is made from non-voters to Conservative of those who indicated that they were 2010 Con voters AND liked Cameron, the result is very close to the actual one.

    There are people who are ashamed to admit they vote Tory - even online.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    OTOH, the same was true of UKIP voters, and the polls were correct for UKIP.

    Perhaps UKIP really did re-engage former non-voters, while Labour didn't.

    I was going to say the exact same thing.

    Though I suppose UKIP offered a relatively "new" proposition to voters that wasn't necessarily there five years before. Basically every every election Labour (and the Democrats in the States) are supposedly "energising" non-voters but with the same proposition they've always offered. So what's changed? Why should non-voters last time vote for the same package Labour were offering last time?

    Makes me think of the saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited May 2015
    @RottenBorough

    I suspect as a result (automatic or manual) of these figures.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/05/28/tessa-jowell-emerges-as-clear-favourite-in-london-mayoral-ra

    It looks like (maybe Labourites here can confirm) that the nominations are happening pretty quickly over this fortnight.

    Although the nomination stage is not the final choice, of course, it looks like Jowell and Khan will make the ballot convincingly, Lammy will make it with work to do and potentially nobody else.
  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    MarqueeMark said:

    This was pointed out here at the time though....

    Correct. The polls were done on the cheap, and the commissioners the pollsters and the readers all were gullible about the results. Add in the changes to methodology when it suited and we had the perfect storm.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Just saying in the office that this FIFA stuff is really making the world rugby cup look good.

    People here in the queues to get tickets for even the minor games. Struggling!!!
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,024
    Tissue_Price said:

    This is undoubtedly part of the answer. But looking at likelihood to vote and methods for reallocating refusers will surely only get the pollsters some of the way there, if some people are saying one thing but - consciously or otherwise - intending to do another...

    I assume the eventual solution adopted by the pollsters will be something like the article above. As you point out, it has an inherent problem: professed voting intention has become decoupled from actual voting activity - or as you more pithily put it, "some people are saying one thing but...intending to do another". Since the only thing an opinion poll *can* measure is professed voting intention, this problem is a bit of a doozie, to be frank.

    One solution is for the pollsters to bring in other sources of information and use those to calibrate the poll responses. RodCrosby had good results with using opinions on party leaders, and NumberCruncher had good results with using NationalEquivalentVote (or whatever) from Rallings & Thrasher/Curtice/whoever. It should be possible for the pollsters to use those or similar data to fix their poll responses.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    edited May 2015
    For me, this is the telling analysis from Andy of ComRes, was all about the leader ratings.

    https://twitter.com/AndyComRes/status/599235199520608256
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    edited May 2015
    JohnO said:

    ICM and Ipsos Mori in particular still have questions to answer whether any changes took place in how their final polls were conducted or interpreted? Were they concerned that they might be out of kilter with their on-line rivals, particularly YouGov?

    Why can't either organisation respond with a simple yes or no?

    Martin Boon has, and I think so has Ben Page of Ipsos Mori, there was no herding on their part.

    As Martin has pointed out, on many other occasions ICM's poll has looked like the outlier, and they've not done any adjustments to bring it in line with other pollsters.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    For me, this is the telling analysis from Andy from ComRes, was all about the leader ratings.

    https://twitter.com/AndyComRes/status/599235199520608256

    Hmmm. Not to discount it but finding a way of getting to the actual result from your final poll is a bit fake. How well would it have worked in 2010?
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Tissue_Price said:

    This is undoubtedly part of the answer. But looking at likelihood to vote and methods for reallocating refusers will surely only get the pollsters some of the way there, if some people are saying one thing but - consciously or otherwise - intending to do another.

    I'm quite persuaded of the merits of priming questions being asked first as that American firm (can't recall name) does.

    I'm interested in that approach too, but philosophically it is trying to do a different thing, as it is trying to simulate the election campaign in the course of the poll, rather than to simply take a measurement of public opinion (which might be not entirely honestly expressed).

    The other problem is that you would be able to get wildly different results depending on what priming questions you use, and so then your judgement comes down to whether you think pro-Labour or pro-Tory priming is more accurate - which is ultimately a political judgement that you can make entirely in the absence of opinion polls anyway.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,208
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    For me, this is the telling analysis from Andy of ComRes, was all about the leader ratings.

    https://twitter.com/AndyComRes/status/599235199520608256

    The problem is that at the next election they won't use that method and they'll come up with some other fiddle that fits with whatever the result is.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    For me, this is the telling analysis from Andy from ComRes, was all about the leader ratings.

    https://twitter.com/AndyComRes/status/599235199520608256

    Hmmm. Not to discount it but finding a way of getting to the actual result from your final poll is a bit fake. How well would it have worked in 2010?
    To be fair to Andy White he acknowledges that in his piece:
    Obviously, this looks striking with the benefit of hindsight, but there are reasons why this may not be a long-term solution to voting intention polling. Retrofitted models that work for GE2015 may simply end up being context-specific. For example, the above adjustment may have led to a greater overestimation of Labour’s share during the Blair years – an error which would have exacerbated a pre-existent tendency for the polls to flatter Labour. As we keep saying, there will be no simple explanation for why the polls were inaccurate this time around.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    edited May 2015
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    For me, this is the telling analysis from Andy from ComRes, was all about the leader ratings.

    https://twitter.com/AndyComRes/status/599235199520608256

    Hmmm. Not to discount it but finding a way of getting to the actual result from your final poll is a bit fake. How well would it have worked in 2010?
    They said, because of the Cleggasm, 2010 the adjustment does work, if you apply it to all three parties.

    But would be crap during the Blair years.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    I thought there was a poll that asked the voter to think about the country, economy, etc first; then asked them the VI question. This meant that they were in a more accurate frame of mind to how they would actually vote.

    Perhaps a prep question (as long as it is not misleading) may be the answer to better polls?

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,791
    People with their blinds down?

    It is unfair that [a] person leaves their home early in the morning and they pull the door behind them and they are going to do their job and they look at their next-door neighbour, the blinds are down and that family is living a life on benefits. That is unfair as well and we are going to tackle that as part of tackling this country's economic problems.

    A touching article from the New Statesman on 'in defence of people with their blinds down':

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2012/10/george-osborne-doesnt-it-if-your-blinds-are-down-morning
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    Does anyone have a summary of the seats where UKIP finished second, so are they second in x number of Lab seats, and y number of Tory seats etc.

    Ta
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    MarqueeMark said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
    Be quite a bun-fight to see who gets to represent Labour for the Manchester seat; the Liverpool seat; the Newcastle seat.....
    You can achieve pretty much the same thing with some form of PR which involves constituencies that are large enough to mix low turnout urban areas with high turnout rural areas.

    So a Staffordshire constituency that combined the low turnout Stoke seats with the high turnout seats of Stone, Staffordshire Moorlands, etc, would reward Tory voters for a higher rate of turnout.

    There are currently 12 constituencies in Staffordshire, but if you had a separate English Parliament and split England's Westminster MPs between the two then you could cover the county with a six-member STV constituency for each Parliament, or 3-member STV constituencies with a north-south split of the county.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have a summary of the seats where UKIP finished second, so are they second in x number of Lab seats, and y number of Tory seats etc.

    Ta

    Hang on...
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Clegg's Alarm Clock Britain springs to mind.

    What a crap slogan.
    CarlottaVance said:

    People with their blinds down?

    It is unfair that [a] person leaves their home early in the morning and they pull the door behind them and they are going to do their job and they look at their next-door neighbour, the blinds are down and that family is living a life on benefits. That is unfair as well and we are going to tackle that as part of tackling this country's economic problems.

    A touching article from the New Statesman on 'in defence of people with their blinds down':

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2012/10/george-osborne-doesnt-it-if-your-blinds-are-down-morning

  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    From two weeks ago, but surely worthy of a thread header?

    Twitter
    Andy White ‏@AndyComRes May 15
    Reviewing @ComResPolls methods has thrown up some devastating findings for Ed Miliband. http://www.comres.co.uk/pollwatch-lessons-for-labour/ …
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited May 2015
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have a summary of the seats where UKIP finished second, so are they second in x number of Lab seats, and y number of Tory seats etc.

    Ta

    Internet disagrees with itself about how many UKIP second places there were: 118, 120 or 125.

    Freedland says they were second to Labour in 44 of those.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/ukip-party-labour-heartlands-left

    Edit: also the Guardian per se confirms 44/76

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/election-2015-where-the-votes-switched-and-why
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited May 2015
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have a summary of the seats where UKIP finished second, so are they second in x number of Lab seats, and y number of Tory seats etc.

    Ta

    Conservative 76
    South East 49
    South West 12
    Midlands 7
    North 5
    London 3

    Labour 44
    North 34
    Wales 6
    London 2
    Midlands 2

    Edit: and second to Bercow too, which my sheet didn't pick up.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,463
    edited May 2015
    "I'm an Opinion Polling addict, and, and I've been fighting to get off polling data -
    shut up, TSE! - and, um, since last August. I've been in rehab twice, and I don't
    wanna be like people like Angus Reid, that were... and stuff like that.
    I wanna be a survivor.

    "I mean I died again on Election Night. So, I'm not... I'm not... my cats' lives
    are out. I... I just wanna say sorry to all the fans and stuff, and uh,
    I'm glad to be alive, and sorry to me mum as well.

    "I just want them to know that it's not cool. It's not a cool thing to be
    an addict. It's not... you know, you're a slave to it, and it took... it's
    taken everything away from me that I loved, and so I've got to rebuild my life."

    http://www.tuug.fi/~jaakko/dm/dave.txt

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    edited May 2015
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Does anyone have a summary of the seats where UKIP finished second, so are they second in x number of Lab seats, and y number of Tory seats etc.

    Ta

    Conservative 76
    South East 49
    South West 12
    Midlands 7
    North 5
    London 3

    Labour 44
    North 34
    Wales 6
    London 2
    Midlands 2

    Edit: and second to Bercow too, which my sheet didn't pick up.
    Thank you.

    Edit: and to Mr Rabbit as well.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    MarkHopkins said:


    I thought there was a poll that asked the voter to think about the country, economy, etc first; then asked them the VI question. This meant that they were in a more accurate frame of mind to how they would actually vote.

    Perhaps a prep question (as long as it is not misleading) may be the answer to better polls?

    That was by Labour's in house pollsters,

    The main difference between our polls and the newspaper polls is that we don’t ask the voting intention first. As Politicalbetting.com’s Mike Smithson found out when he accidentally participated in our only telephone poll of the last 4 years, we first ask respondents to think about the country, the economy, their top issues, the parties and the leaders. We think it gets them closer to their ballot box mindset.

    This technique delivers a much lower don’t know number – generally half the level found in the public polls. We treat this ‘don’t know’ group differently to most of the public polls, asking them questions about who they are likely to vote for rather than assuming they are likely to vote for whoever they voted for last time. Of course, that requires many more questions and so is more expensive to implement especially for a phone pollster where every minute costs money. If we had run a final poll close to election day, would we have got the Tory margin right? It’s hard to know. But if this explanation is broadly true, it means the drift to online polling remains valid.

    http://bit.ly/1J74Cvg
  • Options
    Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited May 2015
    CarlottaVance said:

    Surely the purpose of the clause is to stop Scottish Ministers legislating for 'free unicorns for all' (or some such) given much of the administrative infrastructure is shared, and working out who gets free unicorns and how they would be delivered might impose significant costs on non-Scottish tax payers?

    If that is the aim, then give the power to make regulations to the Scottish Ministers, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, which is not what the clause does. Attempting to give the power to do the same thing in the same jurisdiction to ministers in different governments simultaneously is an innovation, and a bad one.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    The BPC needs to address the way pollsters deal with likelihood to vote. It should be more than just telling the interviewer that you are 10/10 certain.
    The pollsters should probably looking at this but I hope they come up with their own diverse set of methods rather everyone herding together in a BPC consensus.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    fitalass said:

    From two weeks ago, but surely worthy of a thread header?

    Twitter
    Andy White ‏@AndyComRes May 15
    Reviewing @ComResPolls methods has thrown up some devastating findings for Ed Miliband. http://www.comres.co.uk/pollwatch-lessons-for-labour/ …

    The 'PM Squeeze' suggestion might have merit.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Carswell intv on LBC http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cross-party-support-for-carswell/#_@/jcCrZJ7QuBqmiQ
  • Options
    Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    FPT
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Tosh again. Almost no-one in the Conservative Party is 'ideologically committed' to the EU (although Damian Green might be one of the very rare exceptions). Most take the sensible view that there are pros and cons to being members of the EU, and it's a question of balancing the disadvantages of staying in against the advantages. They further take the view that, if we are going to stay in, we should try to build on the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages.

    A very sensible approach, in other words.

    The Tory party is the party of Edward Heath, the party of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the party of the Maastricht Treaty, which was recently happily in coalition with an openly federalist party. In the last Parliament, it decided to give substantial criminal jurisdiction in the UK to the Court of Justice for the first time. Let's not pretend that there isn't a very substantial number of those who are ideologically committed to the European Union in the party.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    ICM and Ipsos Mori in particular still have questions to answer whether any changes took place in how their final polls were conducted or interpreted? Were they concerned that they might be out of kilter with their on-line rivals, particularly YouGov?

    Why can't either organisation respond with a simple yes or no?

    Martin Boon has, and I think so has Ben Page of Ipsos Mori, there was no herding on their part.

    As Martin has pointed out, on many other occasions ICM's poll has looked like the outlier, and they've not done any adjustments to bring it in line with other pollsters.
    Thanks. I hadn't seen that - do you have a link to Martin Boon's comments?
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    The endgame approaches...

    @faisalislam: LibDems call on Sepp Blatter to resign: http://t.co/ZNrb2FXEYg

    Don't think it is a good idea for the Liberals to be calling on people to resign.

    Unless its Carmichael and Rennie.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,291
    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    If Labour had been in danger of picking a left-of-field candidate this might have scared them into someone who coud emphasise integrity and track record. However Jowell, Khan and even Lammy would qualify for that.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,316
    Every single day, day after day after day the number of 18 to 24s and over 60s in YouGov's weighted sample implied turnout (as a % of population) in both groups would be approx equal.

    Every single person who knows anything about politics knows that turnout (as a % of population) amongst over 60s will be far, far, far higher than amongst 18 to 24s.

    It was posted on here a number of times that YouGov had been contacted about this.

    When is an explanation going to be provided for the above?

    It's such a simple question; surely it needs to be answered given it appears to be the root cause of the problem.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SkyNewsBreak: Michel Platini says UEFA "may consider" withdrawing teams from tournaments if Sepp #Blatter re-elected as #FIFA president in tomorrow's vote
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited May 2015
    AndyJS said:

    According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg

    THat would suggest a Lab lead of 3.5 pts or so 18-65 and -17 65+. To get an average 6.6% lead, more than a third of the voting population would have to be 65+.

    Edit: my mind's gone blank on whether I've done the simple maths correctly.
  • Options
    Blofelds_CatBlofelds_Cat Posts: 154
    surbiton said:

    If an adjustment is made from non-voters to Conservative of those who indicated that they were 2010 Con voters AND liked Cameron, the result is very close to the actual one.

    There are people who are ashamed to admit they vote Tory - even online.

    And the question for the Labour party, is how to persuade them to vote Labour in future; 'cos calling them out as "ashamed Tories" doesn't seem to be working.

    (Hint: a workable economic policy might help)
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    As Prof Geoff Evans of Nuffield College Oxford said, the polls held all the right clues for the correct election result, but the headline (VI) conclusions for some reason or other forecast a different result.

    Most commentators have identified Best PM and Best to run the Economy, but there were other clues as well. Apols for using YG polls (I have only detailed stats of these), but Government Approval went steadily from -20 at end of February to -9 on May 5.

    Also when asked if people had noticed any effect of the 'cuts' on them and their family. About 33% said NO and about another 15% DKN. So ~50% not noticing the 'cuts' is a very high figure.

    Looking at OGH's figures above - was there a reverse shy Labour VI. People did not want to admit to the pollster that they would not vote Labour, but when they clasped their stubby wooden pencil they did exactly that - preferring the £ in their pocket to future uncertainty.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: Michel Platini says UEFA "may consider" withdrawing teams from tournaments if Sepp #Blatter re-elected as #FIFA president in tomorrow's vote

    I fully support that, europe to withdraw from FIFA followed by the rest of the west leaving FIFA as a shell.
    That would lead to 2 world cups probably, a western one and a third world one.
    I remember 15 years ago how ULEB broke up away from FIBA over who controls european basketball, though in that case ULEB was the bad greedy guy.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    People are still underestimating the power of the over 60s vote in the UK in my opinion. They probably account for close to 40% of all votes cast.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    AndyJS said:

    According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg

    THat would suggest a Lab lead of 3.5 pts or so 18-65 and -17 65+. To get an average 6.6% lead, more than a third of the voting population would have to be 65+.

    Edit: my mind's gone blank on whether I've done the simple maths correctly.
    I think that ComRes slide is based on their polling and not on the result.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Platini!

    Never thought I'd see the day when a Frenchman led Better Off Out....
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015
    I predict this movie is going to be in the history books as the most panned ever now:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLNPlwxTPA

    United Passions (ha), a movie about FIFA, produced by FIFA, directed by FIFA, starring Tim Roth as the heroic Sepp Blatter.
    Only a megalomaniac with tons of money would make a movie about himself.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    edited May 2015
    Interesting article. So the Lab vote stayed at home on the day.
    The analysis of the pre-election polling over the next few months should be a fantastic story in itself - after all, we don't have polls to analyse at the moment!
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Peston: FIFA sponsor to me: "Why doesn't BBC threaten not to broadcast World Cup?" Hmmm
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Tissue_Price said:

    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
    It also creates an incentive for parties to increase turnout and political engagement in their safe seats.

    But when I've suggested it in the past, lefties whine "but non-voters are represented too". Yes, they are. But they should be encouraged to vote.
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited May 2015
    Speedy said:

    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: Michel Platini says UEFA "may consider" withdrawing teams from tournaments if Sepp #Blatter re-elected as #FIFA president in tomorrow's vote

    I fully support that, europe to withdraw from FIFA followed by the rest of the west leaving FIFA as a shell.
    That would lead to 2 world cups probably, a western one and a third world one.
    I remember 15 years ago how ULEB broke up away from FIBA over who controls european basketball, though in that case ULEB was the bad greedy guy.

    Totally agree. Probably find that in some way shape or form Argentina and Brazil would join up with the UEFA version (all those transfers to European clubs would probably vanish otherwise) and once you've got that who cares what the others do. The Turks and Caicos can play Shangri la in the other World Cup for all I care, we'll all know which is the real one.

    Frankly club football has been an increasingly better "product" for a number of years anyway and as far as I'm concerned the decision to play in Qatar was the final straw. About as logical as holding the Winter Olympics in the Amazon, realising there's no snow switching it to Holland and pretending the lack of mountains doesn't matter either.

    At least the FA for all its many faults has been on the right side of this one, so it seems.


  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,316
    AndyJS said:

    People are still underestimating the power of the over 60s vote in the UK in my opinion. They probably account for close to 40% of all votes cast.

    Let's quickly take a YouGov at random - 2/3 May 2015:

    Over 60s (weighted) = 512/1,789 = 28.6%.

    Someone needs to go through every single poll and check these numbers.

    It's unbelievably basic - it's Primary School maths.

    It's breathtaking that we are even needing to look into this.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/v560chbmi3/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-030515.pdf
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/603922804724072449
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I love the opening of the Scotland Bill
    The Bill said:


    1 The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government
    (1) In section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (the Scottish Parliament) after subsection
    (1) insert—
    “(1A)A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United
    Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.””

    Because nothing says permanent like an amendment to an existing act.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    JohnO said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JohnO said:

    ICM and Ipsos Mori in particular still have questions to answer whether any changes took place in how their final polls were conducted or interpreted? Were they concerned that they might be out of kilter with their on-line rivals, particularly YouGov?

    Why can't either organisation respond with a simple yes or no?

    Martin Boon has, and I think so has Ben Page of Ipsos Mori, there was no herding on their part.

    As Martin has pointed out, on many other occasions ICM's poll has looked like the outlier, and they've not done any adjustments to bring it in line with other pollsters.
    Thanks. I hadn't seen that - do you have a link to Martin Boon's comments?
    It was on TV, talking about the polls, will try and find it.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    antifrank said:

    Lazy Labour non-voters, more like.

    If they're non-voters then they're not Labour either.

    Let's have constituency sizes based on votes rather than electorate, so the good folk of Brecon and Radnorshire get the representation their diligence deserves. Tristram will have to contest Stoke-on-Trent Total.
    It also creates an incentive for parties to increase turnout and political engagement in their safe seats.

    But when I've suggested it in the past, lefties whine "but non-voters are represented too". Yes, they are. But they should be encouraged to vote.
    If you have constituencies based on turnout then the connection between representation and turnout is staggered. If you have a large Labour turnout in 2020, say, the Labour voters don't see the benefit of that until the constituency boundaries are redrawn for the 2025 election. This is sub-optimal.

    If you have multi-member STV constituencies where a large turnout by one side or the other has the potential to deliver an extra seat to that party then the connection between turnout and representation is more immediate.

    At the moment Labour voters in safe Labour seats are merely making a rational economic decision about the value of their time and using it to vote. Bit perverse of a Conservative to penalise people for making rational economic decisions...
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/603922804724072449

    Bit of a mix of whether they are true / influenced your vote. Some make no real sense at all.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/603922804724072449

    Bit of a mix of whether they are true / influenced your vote. Some make no real sense at all.
    There were other questions on that topic, prior to those, see here

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGGRvEkWMAAER2r.jpg
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sandpit said:

    Interesting article. So the Lab vote stayed at home on the day.
    The analysis of the pre-election polling over the next few months should be a fantastic story in itself - after all, we don't have polls to analyse at the moment!

    Well the exit poll compared with the opinion polls show these differences:

    1. The Tory lead among ABC1 was 15% not 5%.
    2. Turnout was 14% lower than what was predicted among C2DE rather that 5% with ABC1
    3. Turnout was 24% lower than predicted among 18-24 rather than 8% with over 60's.

    In conclusion, Labour lost because old rich people have significantly higher turnouts than poor young people, a major factor is that elections are on a working day instead of a weekend day like most countries, and that favours the wealthy and the old who have more time to vote.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Alistair said:

    I love the opening of the Scotland Bill

    The Bill said:


    1 The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government
    (1) In section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (the Scottish Parliament) after subsection
    (1) insert—
    “(1A)A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United
    Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.””

    Because nothing says permanent like an amendment to an existing act.
    well, some of those amendments to the US constitution seem fairly durable
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: Michel Platini says UEFA "may consider" withdrawing teams from tournaments if Sepp #Blatter re-elected as #FIFA president in tomorrow's vote

    Good for M. Platini, someone needed to actually say it. Let's hope he has the European FAs behind him happy to withdraw and maybe play their own tournament somewhere else. I can't imagine the American teams would be too interested in a trip to Russia either.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,959
    Tissue_Price said:

    FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.

    http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/

    Thanks, that's interesting.

  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited May 2015
    OblitusSumMe said:



    At the moment Labour voters in safe Labour seats are merely making a rational economic decision about the value of their time and using it to vote. Bit perverse of a Conservative to penalise people for making rational economic decisions...

    Exactly. I put together a script to work out what the vote shares would be assuming the winning party in each constituency get the minimum necessary to win (so 2nd place votes + 1) but all the losing parties still got the same votes. I was going to produce a second version that did the same but only the 2nd place party voters bother to turnout and 3rd and below all stay home and make a cup of tea instead.

    Don;'t have the figures on me but it has surprisingly little effect on the national vote shares.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    Interesting, could either split the vote or lose his deposit. Hopefully the latter, we need fewer Galloways and Lutfur Rahmans in our politics.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    OblitusSumMe said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
    Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
  • Options
    madmacsmadmacs Posts: 75
    I was not in the country for the election but people I trust tell me that the postal votes were as good for the Tories as on the day. This strongly suggest you can rule out late swing
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,316
    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Interesting article. So the Lab vote stayed at home on the day.
    The analysis of the pre-election polling over the next few months should be a fantastic story in itself - after all, we don't have polls to analyse at the moment!

    2. Turnout was 14% lower than what was predicted among C2DE rather that 5% with ABC1
    3. Turnout was 24% lower than predicted among 18-24 rather than 8% with over 60's.
    Consider the above 4 statements.

    Turnout was lower than "predicted" in all 4 groups.

    Yet total turnout was up on 2010 and very much in line with what would have been expected overall.

    Conclusion: The "prediction" was very, very, very obviously wrong.

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,463
    I think I know why I voted Labour three weeks ago.

    I'm an extremely shy Tory.

    In fact, I'm so painfully shy, I found it physically impossible to mark an 'X' in the "Conservative" box on my ballot paper.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015
    MikeL said:

    AndyJS said:

    People are still underestimating the power of the over 60s vote in the UK in my opinion. They probably account for close to 40% of all votes cast.

    Let's quickly take a YouGov at random - 2/3 May 2015:

    Over 60s (weighted) = 512/1,789 = 28.6%.

    Someone needs to go through every single poll and check these numbers.

    It's unbelievably basic - it's Primary School maths.

    It's breathtaking that we are even needing to look into this.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/v560chbmi3/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-030515.pdf
    Putting the turnout figures from the exit poll, over 60's made just over 33% of those voted.
    Those over 40 made over 68% of those voted.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,148
    Dair said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
    Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
    Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...
  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Look, the expensive internal polling for people desperate for the right results was correct. The cheap public polling for clients who only wanted an easy headline was wrong.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MarqueeMark said:

    Dair said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/

    I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.
    Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.
    Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...
    Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    I think I know why I voted Labour three weeks ago.

    I'm an extremely shy Tory.

    In fact, I'm so painfully shy, I found it physically impossible to mark an 'X' in the "Conservative" box on my ballot paper.

    I fear you have used this anecdote almost as much as another one on here about a certain MP from Doncaster and his likelyhood of ever residing in a certain address in London.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    madmacs said:

    I was not in the country for the election but people I trust tell me that the postal votes were as good for the Tories as on the day. This strongly suggest you can rule out late swing

    There was no late swing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    edited May 2015
    Ha, the DT have put their sketchwriters on the FIFA story:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/11229335/Fifa-Sepp-Blatter-awards-2026-World-Cup-to-Hell.html
    Hell will host the 2026 football World Cup after a Fifa report found “no reason” to overturn the controversial underworld destination’s successful bid.

    A 666-page report seen by The Telegraph concluded that Fifa had acted ethically in awarding its showpiece tournament, and suggested Lucifer be compensated with “a really nice wristwatch, one with diamonds and everything” for having been put through an “unnecessary and upsetting” grilling.
    ...and so on for 1000 words :smiley:
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Carnyx said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.

    http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/

    Thanks, that's interesting.

    Nats still flogging this dead horse ?

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TGOHF said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.

    http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/

    Thanks, that's interesting.

    Nats still flogging this dead horse ?

    That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited May 2015
    MikeL said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Interesting article. So the Lab vote stayed at home on the day.
    The analysis of the pre-election polling over the next few months should be a fantastic story in itself - after all, we don't have polls to analyse at the moment!

    2. Turnout was 14% lower than what was predicted among C2DE rather that 5% with ABC1
    3. Turnout was 24% lower than predicted among 18-24 rather than 8% with over 60's.
    Consider the above 4 statements.

    Turnout was lower than "predicted" in all 4 groups.

    Yet total turnout was up on 2010 and very much in line with what would have been expected overall.

    Conclusion: The "prediction" was very, very, very obviously wrong.

    Turnout was only 1% higher than in 2010, all opinion polls had it about 8-10% higher than 2010.
    Turnout was up from 2010 only among those over 45, the middle class and immigrants.

    But the swings was also interesting, there was a big swing to the Tories among the rich and the old, that coupled with the much lower turnout than predicted that actually fell from last time among key Labour demographics, lead to Tory victory.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Sandpit said:

    Ha, the DT have put their sketchwriters on the FIFA story:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/11229335/Fifa-Sepp-Blatter-awards-2026-World-Cup-to-Hell.html

    Hell will host the 2026 football World Cup after a Fifa report found “no reason” to overturn the controversial underworld destination’s successful bid.

    A 666-page report seen by The Telegraph concluded that Fifa had acted ethically in awarding its showpiece tournament, and suggested Lucifer be compensated with “a really nice wristwatch, one with diamonds and everything” for having been put through an “unnecessary and upsetting” grilling.
    ...and so on for 1000 words :smiley:

    This is clearly satire as everyone knows the 2026 tournament is promised to Isil.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Has Tony Blair been brought in to clean up ethics in FIFA yet?
  • Options
    LadyBucketLadyBucket Posts: 590
    I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!

    I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.

    http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/

    Thanks, that's interesting.

    Nats still flogging this dead horse ?

    That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.
    Toby Young goes a bit further than that...

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/9541262/nicola-sturgeon-protests-too-much-about-alistair-carmichael/

    "The SNP is, by some margin, the most dishonest party in Britain."
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Has Tony Blair been brought in to clean up ethics in FIFA yet?

    No chance, there is no way that the FIFA executives would be seen dead talking to a scumbag like Blair.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    To understand the problem facing Labour with turnout in the 2015GE:

    2015 Ipsos Mori exit poll:
    18-24: 43%
    25-34: 54%
    65+: 78%

    2010:
    18-24: 52%
    25-34: 57%
    65+: 75%

This discussion has been closed.