Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pre “adjustment” ICM has LAB and CON level-pegging – after
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pre “adjustment” ICM has LAB and CON level-pegging – after it the Tories are 6% ahead
It should be noted, however, that the raw data shows substantive change which our newly strengthened adjustment process disguises. Based on (pre-adjusted) turnout weighted data, the parties are neck and neck, which the manual adjustment converts into a 6-point Conservative lead.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
HOWEVER, it's stupid to compare polls now to polls in late 2010, and to conclude that Labour are doing worse now than they were then. The methodology changes are probably correct, but it's still not comparing like with like to compare it with the 2010 polling which had methodology inherently more favourable to Labour.
» show previous quotes
Pretty sure we actually did let in quite a few German Jews.
----------------------
Yes we did. They were absolute enemies of the Nazis, Yet the Chamberlain government put most of the adults in prison camps. Of course in the end they did a lot to help win the war.
The dying art of political polling.
Looks like they haven't changed much.
twitter.com/suemcdonald342/status/666256540224135168
That isn't the performance of a party that is even treading water, let alone one that is two points up on May.
When the player answered questions in English, the translator would scribble furiously and then read out the French translation. Bizarre.
As an example: in the same way Jews != Rosenbergs
...and after hubris comes...
OT
I shall start believing the polls again once they have some sort of track record, until then my guessing stick is as good as theirs.
My research was in epidemiological techniques. No amount of post sample tinkering can make up for a biased sample. More or less what I pointed out in my first PB post a very long time ago.
We're at the point where we're dealing with noise in the data without good filters to do so.
Nobody believes Corbyn, he's more shit than Osborne, Scotland is dead to Labour, the party stands for nothing and has no policies.
If Ed is crap what does that make Jezza ?
I'm doing a YouGov poll.
These are some of the questions.
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:
I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways towards Muslims because it is personally important to me
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:
I try to be unprejudiced towards Muslims due to my own convictions.
This is really in the 'when did you stop beating your wife category.
I think that poll convinced me that I'm subconsciously prejudiced against Muslims
and turnips
This already bears the hallmarks of what happened in Scotland.
Opinion polls, for all their imperfections, are still more reliable than local by-elections.
As part of a plea bargain from some horrific sentence threatened by the Feds.
The reason being that the translator was an expert in English to Welsh translation, and knew the idioms for that. There were other translators for Welsh to English.
What a waste of money.
(For the purposes of this, I forget in which way the translator translated. It makes sense for it being English to Welsh)
The main thing that caused the disconnect between predictions and the results, was people hadn't realised the differences in where the votes would stack up (that the Tories would do much better in marginals, while Labour's extra votes would mostly be wasted in safe seats). It was the "swingometer" models that were the main problem, not the polling.
Ashcroft's 2nd question was A mahoosive red herring.
Coaliton left Nick Clegg feeling like a pig at a Piers Gaveston Society initiation ceremony
but weren't we told that Red LDs were going to swing the election by voting Labour ?
In hindsight the who do you want as PM was the better indicator.
Poor Jezza.
I know they are somewhat a core part of this site, but we pay too much attention to polls.
Disclaimer, my knowledge of international simultaneous language translation comes from a memory of the film Charade
Not that Corbyn will be Lab leader in 2020 anyway.
The internet polls were bollocks because they were populated by self-selected, twittervist idiots of the kind that predominantly lean left.
The pollsters kept weighting their polls that just conveniently fitted with the sponsors' political leanings, and then they all shat themselves because of the ineffective, inaccurate, daily Yougov where someone made a strategic error in late March to weight everything towards a Labour lead when all the phone polls were showing Labour losing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIgBoMWocYc
However, the main national polls really were not that far out: it's not the polling companies' fault that people took the accurate-ish polling information, and then made their own inaccurate assumptions that there would be a uniform swing in every seat to produce their own forecasts (when in reality the Tories were doing much better in marginals than the national voting figures would indicate).
Polls may be clickbait, but we all like clicking.
have you been on this site before ?
The people that were massively wrong were the ones placing their faith in Yougov.
Someone made a very poor call at Yougov at the end of March, which caused their error, and which the rest of the herd fell for right at the end.
The person who authorised/calibrated the late re-weighting there is the primary culprit in what followed.
ICM, Ashcroft and Comres frequently showed big Tory leads, as did Opinium's raw data.
"Shoot to kill" and "send in the army" have specific meanings for the pro Irish Republican types - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland
As I mentioned the other day, the war that was waged in NI used intelligence, informers and directed violence to bring both sides to the negotiating table. "Shoot to kill" was coined for replacing a couple of coppers trying arrest terrorists (and getting murdered) for their pains with ambushes which were carefully designed to be fatal and to have no escape. The IRA didn't like that very much - one thing to shoot off duty policeman in the back, another to have a closed casket funeral because the effects of 250 rounds from a GPMG.
Corbyn would have been off his Irish friends Christmas card lists if he'd said yes.
@georgeeaton: Ken Livingstone revealed tonight that he will be co-chair of Labour's defence review with Maria Eagle - pair opposed on Trident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY6mMQYjTq4
As another example: 'Jeremy Corbyn will be PM' would take some translating...
If Corbyn was spouting incoherent gibberish, the episode would be unremarkable except as a sign of Labour’s hastening march into irrelevance. What makes it insidious is the semi-coherence, the fluency of his ellipses and the cold diffidence, mingled with didactic vanity, that seemed to urge his audience to get beyond the banal horror of the headlines, to reach the deeper insight available to those, like himself, who have been warning about interventionist folly (he reminded us) since 2001. He did not excuse the murderers. “Obviously, absolutely, blame those that did it. Absolutely, obviously Isil are totally wrong,” he said, but with a hint of impatience, making the ethical distinction between terrorist and target sound like a caveat to the more sophisticated point he was getting at.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/jihadism-western-policy-jeremy-corbyn-isis
What does this mean in the Northern Ireland context. I did not know there were just two sides and that they both wanted to not negotiate.
It looks to me like they've started with what a reasonable answer might be, now, and worked back to come up with a credible method that delivers it.