Of course it matters. People aren't going to be seeing Corbyn as a likely pm in his first week as an anti-establishment candidate when all of the media have been going guns blazing 24/7 saying he isn't, but we need to know if that actually affects VI in a real rather than implied sense. It smacks of another part of the Discredit Corbyn ASAP agenda rather than dispassionate analysis.
I don't think dispassionate analysis is necessary - he may gain some non voters but many, many more voters are going to be completely switched off by him and more determined then ever to keep him away from any form of power
Well we don't know unless we actually ask them how they would vote. Not wish washy 'more likely less likely agree disagree blah blah' stuff.
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
It's possible that a voting intention question has been asked and the result is being held back for another day's news coverage.
In the meantime, we can only go on the polling information we have. Constructing mad conspiracy theories may be therapeutic but it isn't very informative.
The OBR poll is not a voting intention poll, it's a likelyhood poll, 37% of Labour voters say they are less likely to vote Labour and 20% more likely to vote Tory than before.
If we estimate Labour has gone from 31% to 25% that's a six point drop. Let's imagine they take two points from the green, so an eight point loss to other parties. Give four to the Tories, two to Lib Dems, two to UKIP. Baxter predicts a 108 seat majority.
I can't believe they would report something that badly.
They have. We need to see some proper polls.
After the General Election does anyone know what a proper poll is?
Well, a VI question would be just as valid as these questions, although I suspect it wouldn't make quite such good misleading headlines,
Of course it matters. People aren't going to be seeing Corbyn as a likely pm in his first week as an anti-establishment candidate when all of the media have been going guns blazing 24/7 saying he isn't, but we need to know if that actually affects VI in a real rather than implied sense. It smacks of another part of the Discredit Corbyn ASAP agenda rather than dispassionate analysis.
I don't think dispassionate analysis is necessary - he may gain some non voters but many, many more voters are going to be completely switched off by him and more determined then ever to keep him away from any form of power
Well we don't know unless we actually ask them how they would vote. Not wish washy 'more likely less likely agree disagree blah blah' stuff.
Well I have to admit you are very good at being in denial and loyal to your cause
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
Well - it might be straightforward enough in theory. But I wonder if it might not look like a bit of a leading question. 'Do you think that the new Labour leader is terrible? Would you vote for a party led by him?' And given that opinion polling has taken a bit of a battering in recent months, I could understand if they wanted to treat these as separate issues.
Somewhere in Yes Prime Minister (I think it's in 'The Ministerial Broadcast') there is a wonderful clip of Humphrey getting Bernard to give opposite answers to the same question by asking a different set of questions leading up to it, noting 'The reputable polls don't do that - but there aren't many of those.' However, another disaster like May would surely finish opinion polling as a discipline for the foreseeable future, so I could see a very good reason there to play it safe at the moment.
EDIT - that being said, you do have a point about the mood music, which was pretty much my point 3 above. The only doubt I would have is whether the result of a genuine VI poll would give any comfort to Labour members (particularly admirers of Corbyn such as yourself). These numbers are not good for Corbyn and it doesn't seem likely to me that they would translate into good numbers for his party.
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
It's possible that a voting intention question has been asked and the result is being held back for another day's news coverage.
In the meantime, we can only go on the polling information we have. Constructing mad conspiracy theories may be therapeutic but it isn't very informative.
I'm just going on two facts we do have - 1) the media are out to get corbyn 2) the only polls that have been released by the media, unusually, contain no VI questions. I don't think it's completely batsh*t to suggest there is the possibility of a link?
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
It's possible that a voting intention question has been asked and the result is being held back for another day's news coverage.
In the meantime, we can only go on the polling information we have. Constructing mad conspiracy theories may be therapeutic but it isn't very informative.
I'm just going on two facts we do have - 1) the media are out to get corbyn 2) the only polls that have been released by the media, unusually, contain no VI questions. I don't think it's completely batsh*t to suggest there is the possibility of a link?
But more importantly 3) a good Corbyn poll would be absolutely shocking and media love both surprising stories and the ability to set up a victim for a fall.
Ayr East on South Ayrshire (SNP defence) Result: Conservatives 1,527 (39% +6%), Scottish National Party 1,507 (39% +7%), Labour 642 (16% -7%), Independents 218 (6% -6%) SNP HOLD on the fourth count with a minority of 20 (0%) on a swing of 0.5% from Conservative to Scottish National Party
Please could someone explain this result to me? I've never come across a winner with fewer votes than another party.
STV election. The Green's transfers favoured the SNP by 26 votes; independent by 5; Labour by 24. The Green candidate was not listed above but won 76 votes.
So none of the Green voters switched to the SCONs on second preference ?
Surely those 'hug a husky' and 'cycle and chauffer' photostunts weren't in vain ?
Interesting decision not to do headline VI's. Frustrating.
Until the polling industry announces it has fixed itself, vote intention figures are a substance of uncertain quality that is nonetheless craved by the addict. Like a bad batch of, ahem, "antimalarial tablets". (If that claim is true and not just a way to avoid admitting drug use, then one would be looking for a Labour MP on the right of the party who used Lariam, which was notably commissioned by the MoD. Draw your own conclusions)
Not sure what you're getting at re: lariam. Have you ever taken it, or do you know anyone who has? The hallucinations/dreams are legendary.
As for polls, the headline VI's did an awesome job of measuring the SNP surge, didn't it?
Dismiss at your peril.
All I am saying is that it would be a good way to make a joke about a bad trip while not getting a reputation for talking about illegal drug use!
I was on the Guardian last week when the usual anti-New Labour rants were going on and posted that this attitude was pretty much;
"Shoo voters, we need to attract non-voters"
I have seen nothing to change that view.
Even if they think this "plan" can work — attract more non-voters than the voters they repel — there are several major elections (Europe, local, Scottish parliament, London mayor, EU referendum) that will act as warnings to the other parties before the next general election.
If they are to spring a surprise on "old politics" surely they would want to do that right before a general election, not have to pull it off several times in a row, providing years of advance warning to let the other parties come up with counter-strategies.
Anyway that assumes Labour will actually get to the election with Corbyn still leading a united party. One slip-up and the moderates will surely pounce.
Ayr East on South Ayrshire (SNP defence) Result: Conservatives 1,527 (39% +6%), Scottish National Party 1,507 (39% +7%), Labour 642 (16% -7%), Independents 218 (6% -6%) SNP HOLD on the fourth count with a minority of 20 (0%) on a swing of 0.5% from Conservative to Scottish National Party
Please could someone explain this result to me? I've never come across a winner with fewer votes than another party.
STV election. The Green's transfers favoured the SNP by 26 votes; independent by 5; Labour by 24. The Green candidate was not listed above but won 76 votes.
So none of the Green voters switched to the SCONs on second preference ?
Surely those 'hug a husky' and 'cycle and chauffer' photostunts weren't in vain ?
The Green votes split 33-12-9-7 SNP-Labour-Independent-Conservative. 15 Green voters had no second preference.
No, the media do not love a good story if it means a boost for one of their sworn enemies they are pulling out every stop to destroy. Not that I'm saying we'd see a Corbyn boost in VI - I suspect they'd show little change for now, which I think would be fine for the moment given the unprecedented media assault worthy of a banana republic. That wouldn't fit the narrative.
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
It's possible that a voting intention question has been asked and the result is being held back for another day's news coverage.
In the meantime, we can only go on the polling information we have. Constructing mad conspiracy theories may be therapeutic but it isn't very informative.
I'm just going on two facts we do have - 1) the media are out to get corbyn 2) the only polls that have been released by the media, unusually, contain no VI questions. I don't think it's completely batsh*t to suggest there is the possibility of a link?
But more importantly 3) a good Corbyn poll would be absolutely shocking and media love both surprising stories and the ability to set up a victim for a fall.
Yes - you can just see the conflicting headlines:
Mail: 'Worst crisis since Attila invaded Cisalpine Gaul as poll puts Corbyn less than 50 points behind the Tories!'
Mirror: 'WE'RE SORRY as poll proves that we were totally wrong to say Corbyn would lead Labour back to the dark ages; he closes to just 5 points behind.'
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
Well - it might be straightforward enough in theory. But I wonder if it might not look like a bit of a leading question. 'Do you think that the new Labour leader is terrible? Would you vote for a party led by him?' And given that opinion polling has taken a bit of a battering in recent months, I could understand if they wanted to treat these as separate issues.
Somewhere in Yes Prime Minister (I think it's in 'The Ministerial Broadcast') there is a wonderful clip of Humphrey getting Bernard to give opposite answers to the same question by asking a different set of questions leading up to it, noting 'The reputable polls don't do that - but there aren't many of those.' However, another disaster like May would surely finish opinion polling as a discipline for the foreseeable future, so I could see a very good reason there to play it safe at the moment.
This poll does not matter. None of them do. All these issues are for the labour party to sort and and frankly who cares. The government have to get on with governing and in 2020 we will have an election. The govt is not the one who has to whistle up issues to campaign on... It has to govern and then argue it's case.
I was on the Guardian last week when the usual anti-New Labour rants were going on and posted that this attitude was pretty much;
"Shoo voters, we need to attract non-voters"
I have seen nothing to change that view.
Even if they think this "plan" can work — attract more non-voters than the voters they repel — there are several major elections (Europe, local, Scottish parliament, London mayor, EU referendum) that will act as warnings to the other parties before the next general election.
If they are to spring a surprise on "old politics" surely they would want to do that right before a general election, not have to pull it off several times in a row, providing years of advance warning to let the other parties come up with counter-strategies.
Anyway that assumes Labour will actually get to the election with Corbyn still leading a united party. One slip-up and the moderates will surely pounce.
It will all be slip-ups but the moderates don't have the membership behind them. The moment for saying "my mistake, now I want David Miliband" has not arrived for most Corbyn voters yet. The moderates can quit en masse but last time they tried that trick they won six seats.
Presumably adding a VI question would be pretty straightforward though Ydoethur? It just might contradict the mood music they are aiming for, would be my cynical suspicion.
Well - it might be straightforward enough in theory. But I wonder if it might not look like a bit of a leading question. 'Do you think that the new Labour leader is terrible? Would you vote for a party led by him?' And given that opinion polling has taken a bit of a battering in recent months, I could understand if they wanted to treat these as separate issues.
Somewhere in Yes Prime Minister (I think it's in 'The Ministerial Broadcast') there is a wonderful clip of Humphrey getting Bernard to give opposite answers to the same question by asking a different set of questions leading up to it, noting 'The reputable polls don't do that - but there aren't many of those.' However, another disaster like May would surely finish opinion polling as a discipline for the foreseeable future, so I could see a very good reason there to play it safe at the moment.
EDIT - that being said, you do have a point about the mood music, which was pretty much my point 3 above. The only doubt I would have is whether the result of a genuine VI poll would give any comfort to Labour members (particularly admirers of Corbyn such as yourself). These numbers are not good for Corbyn and it doesn't seem likely to me that they would translate into good numbers for his party.
But surely the questions aren't leading, but are supposed to be neutrally asking opinions of Corbyn. If not, then that is also suspect, no?
If we estimate Labour has gone from 31% to 25% that's a six point drop. Let's imagine they take two points from the green, so an eight point loss to other parties. Give four to the Tories, two to Lib Dems, two to UKIP. Baxter predicts a 108 seat majority.
Possibly more.
Because Labour would be picking up votes where it least needs them and losing them where it would be damaged most.
Even if they think this "plan" can work — attract more non-voters than the voters they repel — there are several major elections (Europe, local, Scottish parliament, London mayor, EU referendum) that will act as warnings to the other parties before the next general election.
If they are to spring a surprise on "old politics" surely they would want to do that right before a general election, not have to pull it off several times in a row, providing years of advance warning to let the other parties come up with counter-strategies.
Anyway that assumes Labour will actually get to the election with Corbyn still leading a united party. One slip-up and the moderates will surely pounce.
They assume the voters are there to be attracted, yearning in the fields for a fairer government and to throw off the yolk of Tory oppression. Corbynistas are this bloke; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
'ORB poll shows Corbyn loses one fifth of lab voters' Do you not think you're a bit better than that, TSE? You know as well as I do it shows no such thing and the Independent should be ashamed of itself too for running that as a headline.
'ORB shows Cameron loses almost one tenth of conservative voters to Corbyn'
The questions in my wife's Yougov tonight were all about the EU and the apocalypse. I think that this was intended to be 2 discrete topics but if you switch on the news its hard to tell.
Interesting decision not to do headline VI's. Frustrating.
Until the polling industry announces it has fixed itself, vote intention figures are a substance of uncertain quality that is nonetheless craved by the addict. Like a bad batch of, ahem, "antimalarial tablets". (If that claim is true and not just a way to avoid admitting drug use, then one would be looking for a Labour MP on the right of the party who used Lariam, which was notably commissioned by the MoD. Draw your own conclusions)
Not sure what you're getting at re: lariam. Have you ever taken it, or do you know anyone who has? The hallucinations/dreams are legendary.
As for polls, the headline VI's did an awesome job of measuring the SNP surge, didn't it?
Dismiss at your peril.
All I am saying is that it would be a good way to make a joke about a bad trip while not getting a reputation for talking about illegal drug use!
Dire start from England, if Fiji - the 33-1 outsiders could kick then they'd be winning.
Pulpstar, I don't know if you saw the link I posted on last night's thread, but it looks like you and my brother have something in common. Not sure if this was from his back yard, or from a trip to the Azores.
Ayr East on South Ayrshire (SNP defence) Result: Conservatives 1,527 (39% +6%), Scottish National Party 1,507 (39% +7%), Labour 642 (16% -7%), Independents 218 (6% -6%) SNP HOLD on the fourth count with a minority of 20 (0%) on a swing of 0.5% from Conservative to Scottish National Party
Please could someone explain this result to me? I've never come across a winner with fewer votes than another party.
STV election. The Green's transfers favoured the SNP by 26 votes; independent by 5; Labour by 24. The Green candidate was not listed above but won 76 votes.
So none of the Green voters switched to the SCONs on second preference ?
Surely those 'hug a husky' and 'cycle and chauffer' photostunts weren't in vain ?
The Green votes split 33-12-9-7 SNP-Labour-Independent-Conservative. 15 Green voters had no second preference.
Ah, I understand you're earlier comment now.
That was actually not too bad for SCON from the SLAB transfers.
But then again Ayr East is a long way, politically and geographically, from Scotland's central belt.
But surely the questions aren't leading, but are supposed to be neutrally asking opinions of Corbyn. If not, then that is also suspect, no?
Well - yes and no. Neutral questions can become leading if you use them as part of a sequence, which is why I had reservations about 'tacking on' a VI question to this poll. For example, if I ask somebody, 'do you like or dislike animals?' that's hardly a leading question. If I ask, 'Are you for or against cruelty to living things?' that's also not a leading question. But if I ask both questions and follow up with 'Do you think eating meat is right or wrong?' I am leading them (assuming answers to previous questions were 'like' and 'against') to say that eating meat is wrong - even if they don't really think that.
So let's think about this poll. It asks, is Jeremy Corbyn a PM in waiting (now that is, in my view, a potentially loaded question, but let's leave that for the moment). It then asks, 'Is Labour more or less electable?' Harmless enough. Then it asks, 'more or less likely to vote Labour/Conservative'. Again, not too bad. BUT, if you then go on to say, 'How will you vote at the next election?' after that prompting, you would have been led to your answer regardless of the reality of what you would say. You would hardly say, Corbyn is more electable, a PM in waiting, makes you more likely to vote Labour and then say, however truthfully, that you never vote at all so you will not be voting Labour. (Problem - that does seem to be his strategy as has been noted above.)
Perhaps you're right and it's all mood music, but I would certainly not trust a VI added on to the basis of this poll.
In all of this doesn't it strengthen David Cameron's majority not least of which Corbyn has lost the DUP and maybe disgruntled labour MP's will just concentrate on their constituents and avoid votes in the HOC
But surely the questions aren't leading, but are supposed to be neutrally asking opinions of Corbyn. If not, then that is also suspect, no?
Well - yes and no. Neutral questions can become leading if you use them as part of a sequence, which is why I had reservations about 'tacking on' a VI question to this poll. For example, if I ask somebody, 'do you like or dislike animals?' that's hardly a leading question. If I ask, 'Are you for or against cruelty to living things?' that's also not a leading question. But if I ask both questions and follow up with 'Do you think eating meat is right or wrong?' I am leading them (assuming answers to previous questions were 'like' and 'against') to say that eating meat is wrong - even if they don't really think that.
So let's think about this poll. It asks, is Jeremy Corbyn a PM in waiting (now that is, in my view, a potentially loaded question, but let's leave that for the moment). It then asks, 'Is Labour more or less electable?' Harmless enough. Then it asks, 'more or less likely to vote Labour/Conservative'. Again, not too bad. BUT, if you then go on to say, 'How will you vote at the next election,' after that prompting, you would have been led to your answer regardless of the reality of what you would say. You would hardly say, Corbyn is more electable, a PM in waiting, makes you more likely to vote Labour and then say, however truthfully, that you never vote at all so you will not be voting Labour. (Problem - that does seem to be his strategy as has been noted above.)
Perhaps you're right and it's all mood music, but I would certainly not trust a VI added on to the basis of this poll.
But VI polls normally come with a bunch of other related questions attached, don't they?
Can the Vi question not just be asked first to help avoid the issues you discuss?
But surely the questions aren't leading, but are supposed to be neutrally asking opinions of Corbyn. If not, then that is also suspect, no?
Well - yes and no. Neutral questions can become leading if you use them as part of a sequence, which is why I had reservations about 'tacking on' a VI question to this poll. For example, if I ask somebody, 'do you like or dislike animals?' that's hardly a leading question. If I ask, 'Are you for or against cruelty to living things?' that's also not a leading question. But if I ask both questions and follow up with 'Do you think eating meat is right or wrong?' I am leading them (assuming answers to previous questions were 'like' and 'against') to say that eating meat is wrong - even if they don't really think that.
So let's think about this poll. It asks, is Jeremy Corbyn a PM in waiting (now that is, in my view, a potentially loaded question, but let's leave that for the moment). It then asks, 'Is Labour more or less electable?' Harmless enough. Then it asks, 'more or less likely to vote Labour/Conservative'. Again, not too bad. BUT, if you then go on to say, 'How will you vote at the next election,' after that prompting, you would have been led to your answer regardless of the reality of what you would say. You would hardly say, Corbyn is more electable, a PM in waiting, makes you more likely to vote Labour and then say, however truthfully, that you never vote at all so you will not be voting Labour. (Problem - that does seem to be his strategy as has been noted above.)
Perhaps you're right and it's all mood music, but I would certainly not trust a VI added on to the basis of this poll.
What if you prepended it, would that make it better?
@JWiseman, yes, and I wonder if that is one of the things that will go with the March report. It always struck me as very foolish to combine them all and I strongly suspect it was one of the things that was skewing the results.
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
In all of this doesn't it strengthen David Cameron's majority not least of which Corbyn has lost the DUP and maybe disgruntled labour MP's will just concentrate on their constituents and avoid votes in the HOC
First, Corbyn never had the DUP. Second, the DUP abstained on tax credits and cannot be seen as part of Cameron's majority. Third, unless it is likely that Corbyn will replace Cameron as Prime Minister after a vote of no confidence, the DUP has no reason to support the government on contentious matters; it is presently extremely unlikely that Corbyn will replace Cameron (10/1 to 8/1 in the next prime minister markets).
Ayr East on South Ayrshire (SNP defence) Result: Conservatives 1,527 (39% +6%), Scottish National Party 1,507 (39% +7%), Labour 642 (16% -7%), Independents 218 (6% -6%) SNP HOLD on the fourth count with a minority of 20 (0%) on a swing of 0.5% from Conservative to Scottish National Party
Please could someone explain this result to me? I've never come across a winner with fewer votes than another party.
They omitted the fourth count figures.
After transfers, the SNP got 1,775 votes, Cons got 1740. So it was actually a majority of 35 votes!
Another reason why rugby 2-3 levels down is better is that you don't have 15 minutes per half at the TMO.
Its a bit annoying when watching on TV and would be a lot more so if stood in the cold.
But when your game is not televised then you know no better. On a televised game you can easily see if the ref has made a mistake. The Fiji scrum half dropped the ball, missed by everyone live, instantly spotted by TV when they showed it. Commentators were right in the middle of singing the players praises, 'upper body strength' and all that, then 'oops'. All the world sees it as a no try.
@JWiseman, yes, and I wonder if that is one of the things that will go with the March report. It always struck me as very foolish to combine them all and I strongly suspect it was one of the things that was skewing the results.
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
That's interesting food for thought, but I'm yet to be convinced these polls aren't asking VI because they are quite likely to show no negative change in labour VI, and that isn't what the people running the polls want to show. It's human nature.
@JWiseman, yes, and I wonder if that is one of the things that will go with the March report. It always struck me as very foolish to combine them all and I strongly suspect it was one of the things that was skewing the results.
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
That's interesting food for thought, but I'm yet to be convinced these polls aren't asking VI because they are quite likely to show no negative change in labour VI, and that isn't what the people running the polls want to show. It's human nature.
Well, you may be right and I certainly have no evidence that would prove you wrong. It will undoubtedly be interesting to see what trajectory the VI polls have when they do finally come out, but I don't think we'll get any clear idea of the Corbyn effect - either way - until he has had a chance to firmly bed in, which I would have thought will be after Christmas. If by February he and Labour have 15 point leads in every poll, you and @NickPalmer will certainly have the right to say to the rest of us, 'we told you so!'
And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night all and have a good weekend.
@JWiseman, yes, and I wonder if that is one of the things that will go with the March report. It always struck me as very foolish to combine them all and I strongly suspect it was one of the things that was skewing the results.
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
That's interesting food for thought, but I'm yet to be convinced these polls aren't asking VI because they are quite likely to show no negative change in labour VI, and that isn't what the people running the polls want to show. It's human nature.
I don't agree. Looking at empirical evidence (Polling after David Cameron's leadership election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election#2005) the polls rapidly changed almost immediately with record polling for the year ranging from 36%-40%. I suspect that a more plausible reason is that there are enough cock-up stories that they don't feel they need to waste the money buying a national poll based story just yet.
Utterly unsurprising poll. Note that Jeremy Corbyn seems to help the Conservatives quite separately from the damage that he does to Labour. He brings a cohort of kippers in play for them.
Yes. I said this a week ago. Lefties seem to forget or ignore that Corbyn will galvanise and polarise the right, by frightening the floaters. Good for the Tories, as Kippers return.
I'm glad the Kippers aren't thinking it's safe to vote purple because the Tories will win easily
Doesn't the British polling council have some rules about releasing polls? Selectively choosing which ones you release is as much manipulation as tampering with the weightings.
@JWiseman, yes, and I wonder if that is one of the things that will go with the March report. It always struck me as very foolish to combine them all and I strongly suspect it was one of the things that was skewing the results.
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
That's interesting food for thought, but I'm yet to be convinced these polls aren't asking VI because they are quite likely to show no negative change in labour VI, and that isn't what the people running the polls want to show. It's human nature.
I don't agree. Looking at empirical evidence (Polling after David Cameron's leadership election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election#2005) the polls rapidly changed almost immediately with record polling for the year ranging from 36%-40%. I suspect that a more plausible reason is that there are enough cock-up stories that they don't feel they need to waste the money buying a national poll based story just yet.
I'm not being obtuse but I'm really not sure what you mean here.
WIN/Gallup Int @WINGALLUP 57% in #Syria think their country is heading in the wrong direction. Public opinion #Iraq . New poll @ORB_Int pic.twitter.com/OiSnCvuLo2
REMARKABLY phlegmatic verdict - much the same level as, say, in the USA. The country's torn in three parts, thousands are dying, thousands more are fleeing, and...well, a slim majority think it's not very satisfactory. Quite incredible.
As for the ORB, I share the reservations expressed in the thread but it would be odd if the turmoil hadn't done some damage. The figures are a bit better than during the leadership election, but still early days.
Utterly unsurprising poll. Note that Jeremy Corbyn seems to help the Conservatives quite separately from the damage that he does to Labour. He brings a cohort of kippers in play for them.
Yes. I said this a week ago. Lefties seem to forget or ignore that Corbyn will galvanise and polarise the right, by frightening the floaters. Good for the Tories, as Kippers return.
I'm glad the Kippers aren't thinking it's safe to vote purple because the Tories will win easily
This years UKIP Conference from Doncaster, should prove interesting if nothing else.
"Fall officially begins Thursday. The leaves will begin to change -- at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. The tests will become harder, the voters more focused on long term relationships.
Maybe the summer romances will endure, the beguiling outsiders will evolve to meet the heightened challenges and this already strange year will defy past experience.
Utterly unsurprising poll. Note that Jeremy Corbyn seems to help the Conservatives quite separately from the damage that he does to Labour. He brings a cohort of kippers in play for them.
Yes. I said this a week ago. Lefties seem to forget or ignore that Corbyn will galvanise and polarise the right, by frightening the floaters. Good for the Tories, as Kippers return.
I'm glad the Kippers aren't thinking it's safe to vote purple because the Tories will win easily
This years UKIP Conference from Doncaster, should prove interesting if nothing else.
I really don't think it will - Farage is a busted flush and the party doesn't really seem to be heading in a clear direction.
Until they get rid of Nige, they are not really going to make progress
In all of this doesn't it strengthen David Cameron's majority not least of which Corbyn has lost the DUP and maybe disgruntled labour MP's will just concentrate on their constituents and avoid votes in the HOC
The DUP have already voted with Labour since Corbyn was elected.
"Fall officially begins Thursday. The leaves will begin to change -- at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. The tests will become harder, the voters more focused on long term relationships.
Maybe the summer romances will endure, the beguiling outsiders will evolve to meet the heightened challenges and this already strange year will defy past experience.
Obama's eligibility question will never go away. It's a valid question, even if he was born in Hawaii...
It's not a valid question, it's a conspiracy dressed up as a question.
In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel's concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the Vattelian Law of Nations view of citizenship, which includes: "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor v Happersett, 1875)
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a "natural born citizen", the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately for Obama, as he readily concedes, his father never was a United States citizen...
Obama's eligibility question will never go away. It's a valid question, even if he was born in Hawaii...
It's not a valid question, it's a conspiracy dressed up as a question.
In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel's concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the Vattelian Law of Nations view of citizenship, which includes: "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor v Happersett, 1875)
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a "natural born citizen", the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately for Obama, as he readily concedes, his father never was a United States citizen...
Obama's eligibility question will never go away. It's a valid question, even if he was born in Hawaii...
It's not a valid question, it's a conspiracy dressed up as a question.
In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel's concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the Vattelian Law of Nations view of citizenship, which includes: "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor v Happersett, 1875)
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a "natural born citizen", the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately for Obama, as he readily concedes, his father never was a United States citizen...
Yes, the leftist gatekeepers to Wikipedia have been very determined to suppress matters, haven't they?
The original "birthers" were in fact the Framers of the Constitution who knew exactly what they were doing...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25th, 1787.
Yes, the leftist gatekeepers to Wikipedia have been very determined to suppress matters, haven't they?
The original "birthers" were in fact the Framers of the Constitution who knew exactly what they were doing...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25th, 1787.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." According to law professor Gabriel J. Chin, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[88][89]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].[59]
Yes, the leftist gatekeepers to Wikipedia have been very determined to suppress matters, haven't they?
The original "birthers" were in fact the Framers of the Constitution who knew exactly what they were doing...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25th, 1787.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." According to law professor Gabriel J. Chin, "there is agreement that 'natural born citizens' include those made citizens by birth under the 14th Amendment."[88][89]
Chin's an idiot.
The Constitution includes the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.
In 1875 the Supreme Court said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
So the 14th Amendment doesn't tell us who is an NBC. As if the above wasn't conclusive enough, there are other reasons why it doesn't, but I'm typing this in bed, so they can wait...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].[59]
Arthur was the only fraud among them. Only discovered due to investigations into Obama.
Volkswagen has been naughty - it had software in 500,000 VW and Audi diesel cars that turned off the emission controls, only turning them on during the emissions test.
The Environmental Protection Agency accused the German automaker of using software to detect when the car is undergoing its periodic state emissions testing. Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls are turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times as much pollution as allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.
Volkswagen has been naughty - it had software in 500,000 VW and Audi diesel cars that turned off the emission controls, only turning them on during the emissions test.
The Environmental Protection Agency accused the German automaker of using software to detect when the car is undergoing its periodic state emissions testing. Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls are turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times as much pollution as allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.
Volkswagen has been naughty - it had software in 500,000 VW and Audi diesel cars that turned off the emission controls, only turning them on during the emissions test.
The Environmental Protection Agency accused the German automaker of using software to detect when the car is undergoing its periodic state emissions testing. Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls are turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times as much pollution as allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.
WIN/Gallup Int @WINGALLUP 57% in #Syria think their country is heading in the wrong direction. Public opinion #Iraq . New poll @ORB_Int pic.twitter.com/OiSnCvuLo2
REMARKABLY phlegmatic verdict - much the same level as, say, in the USA. The country's torn in three parts, thousands are dying, thousands more are fleeing, and...well, a slim majority think it's not very satisfactory. Quite incredible.
As for the ORB, I share the reservations expressed in the thread but it would be odd if the turmoil hadn't done some damage. The figures are a bit better than during the leadership election, but still early days.
I guess when half the population leaves a country the ones who are left are the ones who like the way the leadership is taking it.
Islamicist nutjobs have their own country, people who don't like it move somewhere less nutjob-dominated like Germany, Islamicist nutjobs from Britain move to Islamicist Nutjobistan, everybody wins.
Another example of the problems Hillary is facing.
Today at UNH in Durham, she had - according to the fire marshal - 350 people at an event. She regularly has empty seats at her events. She has what the media are calling an 'enthusiasm gap'.
Bernie Sanders is having an event at UNH on Sunday and the campaign has already received 1350 RSVPs.
There is also email news, which is not good for her. State has officially requested from FBI director Comey copies of all the deleted emails the FBI is recovering from her server.
This looks increasingly like it will not end well for her.
WIN/Gallup Int @WINGALLUP 57% in #Syria think their country is heading in the wrong direction. Public opinion #Iraq . New poll @ORB_Int pic.twitter.com/OiSnCvuLo2
REMARKABLY phlegmatic verdict - much the same level as, say, in the USA. The country's torn in three parts, thousands are dying, thousands more are fleeing, and...well, a slim majority think it's not very satisfactory. Quite incredible.
As for the ORB, I share the reservations expressed in the thread but it would be odd if the turmoil hadn't done some damage. The figures are a bit better than during the leadership election, but still early days.
I guess when half the population leaves a country the ones who are left are the ones who like the way the leadership is taking it.
Islamicist nutjobs have their own country, people who don't like it move somewhere less nutjob-dominated like Germany, Islamicist nutjobs from Britain move to Islamicist Nutjobistan, everybody wins.
It might be 57% in Syria, but last poll I saw almost 75% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The Constitution includes the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.
In 1875 the Supreme Court said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
So the 14th Amendment doesn't tell us who is an NBC. As if the above wasn't conclusive enough, there are other reasons why it doesn't, but I'm typing this in bed, so they can wait...
Rod, I know this is your hobby horse, but you are way off base. Here is the Harvard Law Review on the subject - or are they another leftie bunch of idiots?
As I have posted before, British Common Law and the enactments of the First Congress, many of whom were drafters of the Constitution, are the key. And the consensus except amongst Birthers and those who knowingly and selectively cite legal text in support of the Birther viewpoint, is that those who by virtue of birth are considered US citizens without need to go through a naturalization process, are considered natural born citizens. This includes all children of US citizens born overseas, in line with British law at that time, but expanded to include the children of mothers who were US citizens.
Comments
In the meantime, we can only go on the polling information we have. Constructing mad conspiracy theories may be therapeutic but it isn't very informative.
Somewhere in Yes Prime Minister (I think it's in 'The Ministerial Broadcast') there is a wonderful clip of Humphrey getting Bernard to give opposite answers to the same question by asking a different set of questions leading up to it, noting 'The reputable polls don't do that - but there aren't many of those.' However, another disaster like May would surely finish opinion polling as a discipline for the foreseeable future, so I could see a very good reason there to play it safe at the moment.
EDIT - that being said, you do have a point about the mood music, which was pretty much my point 3 above. The only doubt I would have is whether the result of a genuine VI poll would give any comfort to Labour members (particularly admirers of Corbyn such as yourself). These numbers are not good for Corbyn and it doesn't seem likely to me that they would translate into good numbers for his party.
1) the media are out to get corbyn
2) the only polls that have been released by the media, unusually, contain no VI questions.
I don't think it's completely batsh*t to suggest there is the possibility of a link?
Not too much Soubry can do about that.
Surely those 'hug a husky' and 'cycle and chauffer' photostunts weren't in vain ?
If they are to spring a surprise on "old politics" surely they would want to do that right before a general election, not have to pull it off several times in a row, providing years of advance warning to let the other parties come up with counter-strategies.
Anyway that assumes Labour will actually get to the election with Corbyn still leading a united party. One slip-up and the moderates will surely pounce.
Mail: 'Worst crisis since Attila invaded Cisalpine Gaul as poll puts Corbyn less than 50 points behind the Tories!'
Mirror: 'WE'RE SORRY as poll proves that we were totally wrong to say Corbyn would lead Labour back to the dark ages; he closes to just 5 points behind.'
Definitely would attract the punters!
The government have to get on with governing and in 2020 we will have an election. The govt is not the one who has to whistle up issues to campaign on... It has to govern and then argue it's case.
Its a bit annoying when watching on TV and would be a lot more so if stood in the cold.
Because Labour would be picking up votes where it least needs them and losing them where it would be damaged most.
Corbynistas are this bloke;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
Do you not think you're a bit better than that, TSE? You know as well as I do it shows no such thing and the Independent should be ashamed of itself too for running that as a headline.
'ORB shows Cameron loses almost one tenth of conservative voters to Corbyn'
That was actually not too bad for SCON from the SLAB transfers.
But then again Ayr East is a long way, politically and geographically, from Scotland's central belt.
So let's think about this poll. It asks, is Jeremy Corbyn a PM in waiting (now that is, in my view, a potentially loaded question, but let's leave that for the moment). It then asks, 'Is Labour more or less electable?' Harmless enough. Then it asks, 'more or less likely to vote Labour/Conservative'. Again, not too bad. BUT, if you then go on to say, 'How will you vote at the next election?' after that prompting, you would have been led to your answer regardless of the reality of what you would say. You would hardly say, Corbyn is more electable, a PM in waiting, makes you more likely to vote Labour and then say, however truthfully, that you never vote at all so you will not be voting Labour. (Problem - that does seem to be his strategy as has been noted above.)
Perhaps you're right and it's all mood music, but I would certainly not trust a VI added on to the basis of this poll.
Can the Vi question not just be asked first to help avoid the issues you discuss?
@Pauly, yes, but then it makes the other questions equally loaded.
On the whole, I would be inclined to make political polls single question polls for that very reason. It will be interesting to see what the BPC comes up with.
After transfers, the SNP got 1,775 votes, Cons got 1740. So it was actually a majority of 35 votes!
http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/by-election/lgbe 2015-count-verification spreadsheet result.pdf
All the world sees it as a no try.
And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night all and have a good weekend.
As for the ORB, I share the reservations expressed in the thread but it would be odd if the turmoil hadn't done some damage. The figures are a bit better than during the leadership election, but still early days.
Do you think Corbyn has behaved shamefully in the past with his support for various terrorists ?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Can't help feeling there may be a little sampling difficulty in Syria, though.
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-under-fire-failure-rebut-anti-muslim-backer-152032039.html
"Fall officially begins Thursday. The leaves will begin to change -- at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. The tests will become harder, the voters more focused on long term relationships.
Maybe the summer romances will endure, the beguiling outsiders will evolve to meet the heightened challenges and this already strange year will defy past experience.
But don't bet on it."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/18/opinions/axelrod-gop-campaign-is-getting-serious/index.html
Until they get rid of Nige, they are not really going to make progress
Cricket World Cup and Ashes - oh its on Sky is it?
ECB - I wonder why Cricket isnt getting the attention it used to? Ah fuck it lets have another drink on Murdoch.
Obama 'Hero' Bergdahl Slapped With Stiffer Charges
http://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2015/09/18/150314592/tiger-undergoes-successful-back-surgery-is-hopeful-to-return-in-early-2016/
The man is a traitor and nobody in his own unit has a good thing to say about him.
That's an interesting view.
"natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor v Happersett, 1875)
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a "natural born citizen", the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term "natural born citizen" in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately for Obama, as he readily concedes, his father never was a United States citizen...
The original "birthers" were in fact the Framers of the Constitution who knew exactly what they were doing...
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 25th, 1787.
Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].[59]
The Constitution includes the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.
In 1875 the Supreme Court said:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
So the 14th Amendment doesn't tell us who is an NBC. As if the above wasn't conclusive enough, there are other reasons why it doesn't, but I'm typing this in bed, so they can wait...
The Environmental Protection Agency accused the German automaker of using software to detect when the car is undergoing its periodic state emissions testing. Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls are turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times as much pollution as allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html?_r=0
Islamicist nutjobs have their own country, people who don't like it move somewhere less nutjob-dominated like Germany, Islamicist nutjobs from Britain move to Islamicist Nutjobistan, everybody wins.
Today at UNH in Durham, she had - according to the fire marshal - 350 people at an event. She regularly has empty seats at her events. She has what the media are calling an 'enthusiasm gap'.
Bernie Sanders is having an event at UNH on Sunday and the campaign has already received 1350 RSVPs.
There is also email news, which is not good for her. State has officially requested from FBI director Comey copies of all the deleted emails the FBI is recovering from her server.
This looks increasingly like it will not end well for her.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
As I have posted before, British Common Law and the enactments of the First Congress, many of whom were drafters of the Constitution, are the key. And the consensus except amongst Birthers and those who knowingly and selectively cite legal text in support of the Birther viewpoint, is that those who by virtue of birth are considered US citizens without need to go through a naturalization process, are considered natural born citizens. This includes all children of US citizens born overseas, in line with British law at that time, but expanded to include the children of mothers who were US citizens.