Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft polling is back with a 20k sample EURef surve

SystemSystem Posts: 11,705
edited December 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft polling is back with a 20k sample EURef survey

Lord Ashcroft’s post on the survey, linked to above, is well worth reading because it goes into far more than just referendum voting intention. On the immigration issue Lord Ashcroft notes that it is actually quite complex:

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    edited December 2015
    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2015
    Sequel!
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    Sequel!

    Leicester will always be behind Derby!

    (Except in football of course. We need to make you feel superior in one thing ...)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    My gods, will the madness never cease! Will is at it too.

    The Duke of Cambridge occasionally receives copies of confidential cabinet documents

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35116875

    "Campaign group Republic said there was "no good reason" why Prince William receives the information."

    Other than him being a future head of state. I understand they don't like the hereditary system, but it's what we have, and so rules/procedures are designed around that fact.
    Slow news day.
    Agreed completely. I'm a republican but unless or until the constitution changes it should be followed. William is two heartbeats from being King.

    I'd even accept Harry having been briefed too at least until William became a father.
    NEW THREAD REQUIRED

    That is what I call a PB EXCLUSIVE !!

    :smile:
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    As someone interested in politics, I agree. Without wishing to bring the ire of their fans down on my head, UKIP's largely been characterised by unprofessionalism at every level, from the very top down, with some honourable and notable exceptions. To some extent, that's been some of their charm: they attract the "we're different" vote.

    But most people are not interested in politics, and UKIP's troubles will largely have passed them by.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Sequel!

    Leicester will always be behind Derby!

    (Except in football of course. We need to make you feel superior in one thing ...)
    In a galaxy far, far away in the future when you play at the Kingpower Stadium is it to be called "The Leicester Derby Derby"?

  • Options
    Sith!
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    JackW said:

    Sequel!

    Leicester will always be behind Derby!

    (Except in football of course. We need to make you feel superior in one thing ...)
    In a galaxy far, far away in the future when you play at the Kingpower Stadium is it to be called "The Leicester Derby Derby"?

    AFAICR they were called that when we were both in the Championship a decade or two ago: or "the Derby Leicester Derby." Boring people called it an "East Midlands Derby"

    Still, that's too much football talk for this time in the morning. I'm feeling a little queasy.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    Yokel's post FPT perhaps requires more thought: it indicates that as ISIS start to get squeezed in Syria and Iraq, they're starting to move into other countries. Destroying ISIS is going to be harder than most people on here seem to warrant ...
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2015

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    As someone interested in politics, I agree. Without wishing to bring the ire of their fans down on my head, UKIP's largely been characterised by unprofessionalism at every level, from the very top down, with some honourable and notable exceptions. To some extent, that's been some of their charm: they attract the "we're different" vote.

    But most people are not interested in politics, and UKIP's troubles will largely have passed them by.
    Leave is going to be strongly associated with the kippers, who have a low electoral ceiling. I think this will be decisive.

    For betting purposes though I think the hype in the polls and europhobic press (ironically mostly foreign owned) will make it appear a close race. I have been backing Leave on Betfair and as the odds shift am comfortably in the green.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Oh, wait....
    A list of UKIP's achievements in office: .
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
    You are no Cameronite, but you are so virulently anti-kipper you would say anyone else was good ;) I am not interested in what he campaigned on, words are wind, it's what he delivers, which so far on the EU has been bupkis despite all the long promises. There was a time I voted Conservative because they stood for something, I even had a membership card for a while, now vote for them because they are not run by Corbyn.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
    You are no Cameronite, but you are so virulently anti-kipper you would say anyone else was good ;) I am not interested in what he campaigned on, words are wind, it's what he delivers, which so far on the EU has been bupkis despite all the long promises. There was a time I voted Conservative because they stood for something, I even had a membership card for a while, now vote for them because they are not run by Corbyn.
    All votes count the same Indigo. One reason (among many) that I don't think Lord A's scale of 1-100 is particularly useful. The choice is binary.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2015
    DavidL said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:


    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?

    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
    You are no Cameronite, but you are so virulently anti-kipper you would say anyone else was good ;) I am not interested in what he campaigned on, words are wind, it's what he delivers, which so far on the EU has been bupkis despite all the long promises. There was a time I voted Conservative because they stood for something, I even had a membership card for a while, now vote for them because they are not run by Corbyn.
    All votes count the same Indigo. One reason (among many) that I don't think Lord A's scale of 1-100 is particularly useful. The choice is binary.
    Yes and No. Lord A from what I can see has accounted that 1-100 as binary (those 1-49 and those 51-100) but what it might do is give an indication of the number of people (say those answering 40-60) that might be open to shifting their vote. In the same way, pissed off Tories like me don't vote kipper because they are run by an idiot, where they to be run by Hannan or Carswell, anything is possible.

    There are too many partisan Tories on here who think the colour of the rosette is all that matters, and that any principles or values are up for sale if it wins the election... a fair few real people could care less about the colour the rosette, they want a government with principles and direction, notably the Blue Labour voters for Fatcha.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    By the way, and this is a genuine question, is there any evidence at all to suggest that the much larger sample sizes that Lord A tends to use compared with other pollsters actually produces better results? Logically it should but I don't recall him being any less accurate than the average in the GE.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2015
    DavidL said:

    By the way, and this is a genuine question, is there any evidence at all to suggest that the much larger sample sizes that Lord A tends to use compared with other pollsters actually produces better results? Logically it should but I don't recall him being any less accurate than the average in the GE.

    Statistically it should reduce the chance that his observed result is significantly different than the actual result of a population represented by his sample.

    The last six words matter, if his sampling is crap, and fails to identify a sample representative of the voting population, all the larger sample does is means it is more likely his results will be representation of the view of that bad sample.

    As we have said a number of times, telephone and especially email polling is with a heavily self-selecting (and hence probably unrepresentative) sample. Full on Stratified Random Sampling (such as used in social sciences research) which gives a very good representative sample is incredibly expensive, so won't be used.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,974

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    Since UKIP have never been in government, your question has no relevance.
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    He probably genuinely intended to get something on each of those when he said so.

    Sooner or later the Conservative Party establishment will come to realise that reform from within the EU is impossible.

    But not under Cameron.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    Even Matt seems to be a Kipper these days: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    edited December 2015

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,974
    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2015

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change"
    * "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent"
    * "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
    * : "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
    * a red card for national parliaments on EU laws
    * no benefits for 4 years for migrants
    * a British Bill of Rights to override the ECHR

    Oh, wait....
    He probably genuinely intended to get something on each of those when he said so.

    Sooner or later the Conservative Party establishment will come to realise that reform from within the EU is impossible.

    But not under Cameron.
    Maybe.

    But since he said before the "negotiation" started that he could not countenance leaving the EU under any circumstance, the chances of him actually getting any of them was zero ("I won't countenance not buying your car under any circumstances, how does £500 sound"), and he cannot have been so naive and poorly advised not to know that this was the case, ergo, he never actually intend to get any of them.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    Where as Cameron can be trusted to deliver
    * Immigration in the 10's of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
    * A Treaty protecting British Interests
    * "fundamental, far-reaching change

    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
    You are no Cameronite, but you are so virulently anti-kipper you would say anyone else was good ;) I am not interested in what he campaigned on, words are wind, it's what he delivers, which so far on the EU has been bupkis despite all the long promises. There was a time I voted Conservative because they stood for something, I even had a membership card for a while, now vote for them because they are not run by Corbyn.
    All votes count the same Indigo. One reason (among many) that I don't think Lord A's scale of 1-100 is particularly useful. The choice is binary.
    This is absolutely true, and can't be said often enough.

    Leave need to cease campaigning to amuse their most fervent supporters (35% of the vote is already there) and must focus on the 15-20% or so who might be convinced by a moderate Leave message. Think TSE.

    This shouldn't even need saying, but it does. It also means keeping Farage licking the envelopes in the back office or, if he must, just helping turn out his base on the day itself.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Are they? Most elderly people I know only answer the phone to people they know, and hang up really fast to marketing/polling people. "Politically engaged elderly people" possibly, but its the "politically engaged" that matters much more than the "elderly"
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    There are too many partisan Tories on here who think the colour of the rosette is all that matters, and that any principles or values are up for sale if it wins the election...

    To be fair, Labour supporters are not immune from the same disease, even given the greater ideological range they've had to endure. Mr Palmer is far from the only person to have blindly supported the leadership of Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn because of the common label.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    DavidL said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and
    Oh, wait....
    Cameron can be relied upon to win both General Elections and referendums. 2 of each so far ;-)

    What have the kippers ever achieved at any level of government? Apart from feathering their own nests?
    He won two elections by pretending to be Blair, excuse me if I don't get excited.
    2 elections and 2 referendums.

    I am no Cameronite, but he clearly is not pretending to be Blair. If you think that what he campaigned on in May was the same as New Labour then you have lost touch with reality.
    You are no Cameronite, but you are so virulently anti-kipper you would say anyone else was good ;) I am not interested in what he campaigned on, words are wind, it's what he delivers, which so far on the EU has been bupkis despite all the long promises. There was a time I voted Conservative because they stood for something, I even had a membership card for a while, now vote for them because they are not run by Corbyn.
    All votes count the same Indigo. One reason (among many) that I don't think Lord A's scale of 1-100 is particularly useful. The choice is binary.
    This is absolutely true, and can't be said often enough.

    Leave need to cease campaigning to amuse their most fervent supporters (35% of the vote is already there) and must focus on the 15-20% or so who might be convinced by a moderate Leave message. Think TSE.

    This shouldn't even need saying, but it does. It also means keeping Farage licking the envelopes in the back office or, if he must, just helping turn out his base on the day itself.
    When the date is announced real campaigning from both starts will begin. According to Labour Leave at least 6 of the Shadow Cabinet want to leave, I can't imagine Corbyn preventing them. I'm interested to see which senior Tories come out as Leavers.

    My point is you don't need to be concerned about Nigel, if you want to Remain you'll have enough problems with far more influential people. The main man for Leave will be Dan Hannan, he'll be remembered forever as the Conservative who finished Cameron.
  • Options

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    I don't think UKIP can be trusted to deliver anything. The experience of UKIP at any level of government is one of failure to deliver anything but expenses claims and infighting.

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).
    As someone interested in politics, I agree. Without wishing to bring the ire of their fans down on my head, UKIP's largely been characterised by unprofessionalism at every level, from the very top down, with some honourable and notable exceptions. To some extent, that's been some of their charm: they attract the "we're different" vote.

    But most people are not interested in politics, and UKIP's troubles will largely have passed them by.
    I agree with both of you, UKIP have had many problems with their leaders and elected representatives. Some have ended in jail, some have been criticised for expenses, some have been criticised for bigoted statements, many councillors have left or failed to get re-elected. I know that this happens in other parties too, but it happens more in UKIP.
    There is one honourable exception and that is Douglas Carswell. His policies may be wrong headed but he can't be criticised for expenses or ripping off the taxpayer (even when that stand brings him into conflict with Farage).
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32707357
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Rubio finally beginning a small drift on Betfair, out to 2.9 now.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Is Indigo the new Tim...or even worse.. the new MG..
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    Did you even read the line I was referring to?
    "For one thing, immigration from the rest of the world would be unaffected – and for another thing, a much stricter limit on the numbers coming to live in Britain sounds to many people like the kind of political promise that never quite gets delivered.. “
    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    So online polls overstate Labour at the general election but overstate EU opposition as well (at least according to EU supporters). A surprising combination...?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    Pulpstar said:

    Rubio finally beginning a small drift on Betfair, out to 2.9 now.

    As President Huntsman was saying just the other day he is the rational choice for a Republican party that wants to win but sometimes things just don't work out like that.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,063
    edited December 2015
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Is there actually any evidence for that assertion about the responders? That it's primarily the elderly who do so? I realise that if one phones during the day the elderely are more likely to be at home, but given the heavy pressure on us NOT to respond in any way to anyone we don't know......

    I sometimes answer unrecognised or withheld numbers for light relief, but the "opinion pollers" to whom I've spoken are virtually always thinly disgused marketing exercises for solar panels or life insurance. I think I've once had someone ask a political intention question" but when I said I intended to vote Plaid Cymru he rang off assuming apparently, that since he'd rung an East of England number, I was some sort of spoiler.Or nutter!
    Must try MRLP next time.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Indigo said:

    There are too many partisan Tories on here who think the colour of the rosette is all that matters, and that any principles or values are up for sale if it wins the election...

    To be fair, Labour supporters are not immune from the same disease, even given the greater ideological range they've had to endure. Mr Palmer is far from the only person to have blindly supported the leadership of Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn because of the common label.
    Well quite, the Tories are the current strutting peacocks but labourites under Blair were just as insufferable. Where are they know you might ask.

    My point in another post is there are senior labour figures who will vote Leave and influence Labour supporters, in the same way that people such as Hammond and May will. How Cameron manages it will be fascinating.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205

    Immigration as a factor for Leave only works if it is credible, so means leaving the EEA. Even before we get to the problem that is non EU migration (the bit that people actually dislike).

    Is that right? Can non-EU immigrants claim in-work benefits? My concern about immigration is that it's happening off the back of our 'good' economy which only looks good because it gets an £80bn stimulus every year.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    Did you even read the line I was referring to?
    "For one thing, immigration from the rest of the world would be unaffected – and for another thing, a much stricter limit on the numbers coming to live in Britain sounds to many people like the kind of political promise that never quite gets delivered.. “
    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    You are obsessed with ukip.

    In its current form ukip is finished as a party that has aspirations to win Westminster seats, kippers are actively campaigning to leave the EU, party politics is put aside. i understand that tribalists find it hard to believe that some people campaign for what's best for the country but its a fact none the less.

  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'no SNP style fantasy stuff'

    Presumably that stricture to avoid hyperbole or exaggerated claims also applies to claims such as '3 million jobs at risk' and 'Britain isolated/won't survive'...and also the broader claim that Britain can remain an independent state in an organisation in which most members are determined to move towards a federal union?
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Might be a useful approach from Ashcroft. If accurate, it'll help give a clearer picture of those potentially open to changing their mind.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    FPT - this from @SandyRentool summed it up perfectly polling sample size :lol:
    They give the wrong answer with greater precision?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    runnymede said:

    'no SNP style fantasy stuff'

    Presumably that stricture to avoid hyperbole or exaggerated claims also applies to claims such as '3 million jobs at risk' and 'Britain isolated/won't survive'...and also the broader claim that Britain can remain an independent state in an organisation in which most members are determined to move towards a federal union?

    Absolutely. The 3 million jobs at risk claim is absolutely ridiculous. There will be daft claims by both sides but the onus is on leave to make the case for change and a better alternative.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    Did you even read the line I was referring to?
    "For one thing, immigration from the rest of the world would be unaffected – and for another thing, a much stricter limit on the numbers coming to live in Britain sounds to many people like the kind of political promise that never quite gets delivered.. “
    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...
    You are obsessed with ukip.

    In its current form ukip is finished as a party that has aspirations to win Westminster seats, kippers are actively campaigning to leave the EU, party politics is put aside. i understand that tribalists find it hard to believe that some people campaign for what's best for the country but its a fact none the less.



    Really? That's the best you can do? I'm obsessed with UKIP?

    I'm not, and that might best be directed at others on this forum. But this is a website about politics, and I thought that line was of interest and a potential way forward for the party. My original comment was hardly anti-UKIP.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    edited December 2015



    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,063

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
    The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative'

    David you write this is as if there is some desperate need to find a 'holy grail' of a functioning example of independent states outside the EU. If I may say so that seems a terribly parochial view and perhaps a nice example of how EU membership has turned the eyes of many people in the UK inwards.

    In reality there is a range of models for a new relationship with our ex-EU partners and the rest of the world, and these include not just Norway/Switzerland but examples in the wider world too. Canada and Mexico's relationships with the US, various Asian countries' relationships with China & each other, NZ with Australia etc. etc.

    If we open our eyes we can see that the idea of a country like the UK - a medium-sized and wealthy country - doing perfectly well as an independent state is hardly an oddity.

    People like John Major claiming such a move will put us in 'danger' are just lying and are insulting our intelligence.


  • Options
    BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    Yokel's post FPT perhaps requires more thought: it indicates that as ISIS start to get squeezed in Syria and Iraq, they're starting to move into other countries. Destroying ISIS is going to be harder than most people on here seem to warrant ...

    Most people on here may be right. Out in the real world it was widely predicted. And entirely predictable.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
    The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
    Turkey won't be joining for a couple of decades, if ever. Leaving aside the fact that all members will not agree to them joining, they haven't exactly made fast progress with the acquis communautaire:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#Negotiation_progress
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    Off-topic:

    A rather superb Google Doodle today:
    https://www.google.co.uk/
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    The core finding here that c.60% are undecided, floating, swing voters or won't vote, tallies with similar research undertaken in June.

    Polls that return 90%+ results with 'decision made' outcomes are dubious.

  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
    The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
    Correct, that is a far bigger deal with the wider electorate than any nuances about EEA

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,659
    edited December 2015

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
    DavidL has said he's tending to vote Leave to you.

    You shouldn't be putting him off by objecting to the fact his reasons for doing so are different to yours.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,167



    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
    A narrow Remain vote would actually be better for UKIP's long term prospects than an Out vote
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece
  • Options
    Miss Plato, charity's fine, subscribe to mine...
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Even Matt seems to be a Kipper these days: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

    Or he's poking fun at them.......
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2015
    Another poll to ignore amongst many. I don't recall Ashcroft's polling methodology being any different to the rest of the crew who were all wrong at the GE .. so why pay credence to this?


    Are phone polls conducted in the day and not in the night-time? Just wondered if drink had anything to do with the outcomes.. After all people tend to be more "belligerent" and anti things with a few inside them...
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :lol: I must watch that movie again.

    Miss Plato, charity's fine, subscribe to mine...

  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Given the increased propensity to actually be registered voters and actually vote in all elections/any given election amongst the elderly, phone polling is stastically far more significant than any online polling. The latter sometimes seems closer to voodoo than reality...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.

    A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    How it was:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/30-charity-chiefs-paid-more-than-100000.html
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,974

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Is there actually any evidence for that assertion about the responders? That it's primarily the elderly who do so? I realise that if one phones during the day the elderely are more likely to be at home, but given the heavy pressure on us NOT to respond in any way to anyone we don't know......

    I sometimes answer unrecognised or withheld numbers for light relief, but the "opinion pollers" to whom I've spoken are virtually always thinly disgused marketing exercises for solar panels or life insurance. I think I've once had someone ask a political intention question" but when I said I intended to vote Plaid Cymru he rang off assuming apparently, that since he'd rung an East of England number, I was some sort of spoiler.Or nutter!
    Must try MRLP next time.
    It's very difficult now to get anyone to respond to telephone polls. Insofar as they do, they tend to be older voters.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:



    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
    A narrow Remain vote would actually be better for UKIP's long term prospects than an Out vote
    On an 85% turnout, perhaps, a 65% turnout, not so much.
  • Options
    Are there any indications of the methodology etc for the Ashcroft poll? His indy poll was conducted by 2 different pollsters over a period iirc of 4-5 months. As a result it was a pointless bourach, neither a snapshot nor a prediction.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,974
    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Given the increased propensity to actually be registered voters and actually vote in all elections/any given election amongst the elderly, phone polling is stastically far more significant than any online polling. The latter sometimes seems closer to voodoo than reality...
    Neither type of polling was more accurate than the other in May.

    A week out from polling day, you could say phone polls were more accurate, as they were putting the Conservatives 4-6% ahead, but then they all reverted to level-pegging by the end.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,167

    HYUFD said:



    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
    A narrow Remain vote would actually be better for UKIP's long term prospects than an Out vote
    On an 85% turnout, perhaps, a 65% turnout, not so much.
    As general elections have a 65% turnout anyway that would make no difference
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Given the increased propensity to actually be registered voters and actually vote in all elections/any given election amongst the elderly, phone polling is stastically far more significant than any online polling. The latter sometimes seems closer to voodoo than reality...
    Accurate polling requires an accurate sample. Neither phone or internet are perfect, but online pollsters are packed with people with political hobby horses. The pollsters then try to reweight it all to balance things up. The trend has been to poorer sampling over time.

    This is a fundamentally flawed process because you can only reweight by known variables, but we are interested in the unknown variables of voting intention and likelihood to bother.

    Real election results, even in council by-elections, at least have some validity.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048

    Yokel's post FPT perhaps requires more thought: it indicates that as ISIS start to get squeezed in Syria and Iraq, they're starting to move into other countries. Destroying ISIS is going to be harder than most people on here seem to warrant ...

    Who thought it would be easy? The problem is millions of people who agree with them, and they shift their grievances to maintain the anger so we cannot fix that, so all we can do is beat them down when they pop up, wherever they pop up, accepting they will exist is done form.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    So the online polling is indicating that this is on a knife edge and there are hints elsewhere that it is not close at all. This is ringing vague bells with me.

    One possible explanation is that the internet polling is once again of a highly unrepresentative sample. PB itself is something of a demonstration. I would say there is now a clear majority of contributors on PB who want to leave. The differences are between those that want right out and those who think staying in the EEA is a better idea, albeit it does not deliver on the immigration issue that Lord A has raised.

    Is this typical of the population as a whole? I highly doubt it. Is it indicative of what people's positions might be once they actually start applying their minds to the issue? Maybe, and that has to be the leaver's hope. My gut feel is that the telephone polling is much more indicative of where people are at the moment and that the internet polling is more indicative of those that are interested and engaged.

    But who knows? These wide discrepancies threaten to do yet more damage to the polling industry and ultimately destroy any remaining demand for their product.

    People who respond to telephone polling are also unrepresentative, being predominantly elderly. That ought to result in telephone polling producing better results for Leave than online polling, but the reverse is true.
    Given the increased propensity to actually be registered voters and actually vote in all elections/any given election amongst the elderly, phone polling is stastically far more significant than any online polling. The latter sometimes seems closer to voodoo than reality...
    Neither type of polling was more accurate than the other in May.

    A week out from polling day, you could say phone polls were more accurate, as they were putting the Conservatives 4-6% ahead, but then they all reverted to level-pegging by the end.
    The after polling cooking of the raw data was the problem. A simple rubbish in rubbish out process.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited December 2015
    I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.

    We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm :astonished: at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.

    A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
  • Options

    Miss Plato, charity's fine, subscribe to mine...

    None of you would take mine when I offered it a while ago...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
    I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    My point is that many people see a 'leave' vote in the referendum to be the end of UKIP. I think UKIP will be emboldened: the decision has been made, and many people will be asking whether Cameron, Corbyn, Farron et al can be trusted to get the best deal for Britain from the EU.

    There's a big opportunity there. Of course, UKIP'd need to get someone half competent in charge to substantially gain from it ...

    I think that's right. Moreover, I think a close "remain" result wouldn't necessarily doom UKIP either. I thought (and it wasn't an unusual view) that the SNP would slump if they didn't get the referendum Yes but, um, I wasn't quite right about that...
    A narrow Remain vote would actually be better for UKIP's long term prospects than an Out vote
    On an 85% turnout, perhaps, a 65% turnout, not so much.
    that would make no difference
    Precisely, normal 'unenthused about politics' service shall be resumed.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Jesus. Talk about exponential pay rises.
    Pulpstar said:

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    How it was:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/30-charity-chiefs-paid-more-than-100000.html
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning all.

    IT'S TRUE, GEORGE O IS A NUMPTY!
    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/677409435753521152
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2015
    kle4 said:

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
    I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
    Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.

    *I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The Times investigation is a thousand on more than £100k pa.

    kle4 said:

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
    I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
    Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    The Times investigation is a thousand on more than £100k pa.

    kle4 said:

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
    I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
    Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.
    The mismatch with the 2013 figures must be because the Times article covers a much wider group of voluntary bodies. Theatres, thinktanks, private schools etc.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,403
    *saluting @JackW *

    I hope Guy Pelly is being kept abreast of all matters of State.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited December 2015
    30k long term members have left Labour since Corbyn's election according to The Times. This has been masked by influx of new members. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4643133.ece
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    runnymede said:

    So online polls overstate Labour at the general election but overstate EU opposition as well (at least according to EU supporters). A surprising combination...?

    Not if it is because both groups are more politicised and active on political and polling forums. Indeed it does not surprise me in the least.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    Incidentally, anybody who commissions a poll pays to get the outcome they want, am I wrong in assuming Ashcroft wants out?

    I guess he wants what's bad for Cameron ultimately.

    Not much evidence for that. For a long time, the Telegraph had the poll with the most pro-Lab methodology and the Guardian had the one with the most pro-Con. I'm certain the customer doesn't influence the actual figures, but they do have some influence on the question, and a negotiation with the polling company (which wants to protect its reputation) is not uncommon.

    On charities, I'm unshocked to learn that many CEOs earn £100K. Big charities are like big business and the question should be whether the donors are getting value for money. I contribute to Oxfam in the hope that they'll effectively campaign for foreign aid and help provide it directly. They seem to do so, so if their CEO gets £100K and an £80K boss would be less effective, that's fine with me.
    I suppose it just seems unlikely over a thousand are sufficiently large and effective to potentially justify so many earning so much. I'd agree someone could deserve it, but it's so many!
    Over a thousand? The article says 30 over 100k and 192 over 60k. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to me, though my donations go elsewhere, mostly via the development arm of my church.

    *I see the Times article refers to thinktanks, theatres etc so not charities in the usual sense.
    There's a difference between charity and not-for-profit.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,974

    I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.

    We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm :astonished: at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.

    A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
    Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).

    I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    A very large number of Labour and LD gravy trainers I suspect.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    MikeK said:

    Good morning all.

    IT'S TRUE, GEORGE O IS A NUMPTY!
    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/677409435753521152

    George cannot win.. He is accused of being stiff and uncomfortable in front of camera, cracks a joke and a numpty like you and others damns him for it

    Epic fail.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2015

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Thirst?

    Edit:

    The last line of Ashcroft's snippet above should give UKIP hope: they can set themselves up as the party who can be trusted to deliver it.

    It's interesting to see pollsters try different approaches, especially when they show such wild divergences.

    The referendum is nothing to do with ukip, it decides whether we are able to control numbers or not. If we vote to remain it won't make any difference who wins the election in 2020.

    If we opt to stay in the EEA the effect of the referendum on "numbers" will be minimal on either result.

    The choice we are going to be given is indeed binary but the question of what happens next in the event of Out is, to my mind, their biggest problem. Whichever campaign is classified as the Official Out campaign really needs to work on getting a common position and working through all the implications of their choice in a credible way (ie no SNP style fantasy stuff).
    You are speaking on behalf of such a small part of the electorate that your point is barely relevant, virtually nobody has heard of the EEA.

    Look, you want to stay in the EU, that's fine, a lot of us have absolutely no fear of leaving the EU despite the scare stories. The debate is about sovereignty and free trade, it really is simple.
    A lot of Scots felt the same way, almost 45% in fact.

    There is nothing simple about either free trade or sovereignty in the modern world. I am tending towards voting leave because it looks increasingly unlikely that Cameron will be able to get adequate protection for Britain's interests in an EU controlled by QMV and the EZ bloc vote but there has to be a realistic and worked through alternative.
    Depends on how you frame the message, the alternative to Leave is ever closer union, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of Turkey joining. That's a far more powerful tabloid message than anything about the EEA, and it's the truth.

    Broadsheet readers have made up their minds, read the Telegraph and Guardian, it's the tabloids that will decide.
    The prospect of Turkey joining puts me off, but I understand that Cameron, if IN wins, is in favour.
    That is, to put it bluntly, because he is a fecking idiot. Admitting a country with several hundred miles of porous and barely existing borders with terrorist states to a common travel area. What could possibly go wrong.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited December 2015
    Sean_F said:

    Neither type of polling was more accurate than the other in May.

    A week out from polling day, you could say phone polls were more accurate, as they were putting the Conservatives 4-6% ahead, but then they all reverted to level-pegging by the end.

    The phones were consistently closer (with the exception of Ipsos) up to the very last day or two where they herded.

    In the EU poll a year before, several internet polls had been horrendously wrong, overstating in Lab's favour by 5.5 points, a feat they repeated just twelve months later.

    The observed (in)accuracy of the pollsters in these dry runs is arguably the most valuable pointer in a GE.

    Opinium are usually among the better web pollsters. They were pointing to a big Tory win on their certain to vote indicator in April.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,403
    Sean_F said:

    I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.

    We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm :astonished: at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.

    A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
    Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).

    I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
    Just because it's a charity doesn't mean they can't operate on commercial terms. If a charity employee is bringing in £1m/year I have no problem with their salary being relatively high.

    Look at the chuggers. They charge quite a high amount to do their job but bring in a lot of money. People may despise them but they are effective and are a critical fund-raising channel for charities.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I quite agree - and often it's the *fundraising* directors who get a big wedge because of the massive impact they make to income.

    TBH, I've never met a nice one. Years ago I had a lot of contact with the bigger charities - and almost all of them left me feeling that any means to an end was justified. Lobbying with added self-righteousness. Bumbling incompetence is quaint but equally unacceptable.
    Sean_F said:

    I was the trustee of a small charity that provided home security for OAP burglary victims - new locks etc. We gained inkind support from local contractors and DIY stores for manpower and supplies.

    We spent ZERO on salaries, worked out of the back office of a local business and used their office consumables/computers. Anyone helping us could be certain we weren't farting about or frittering away their donations. I'm pretty cynical about the Big Charidees, but I'm :astonished: at the scale of the carpetbagging the Times has unearthed.

    Holy Moly! Over a thousand charity bosses are paid 100k or more. Over. A. Thousand - I'm gobsmacked.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4643202.ece

    There are probably several causes of this problem. One might be that it is very hard to measure success of a charity: it should really be how many of the 'cause' (people, animals etc) that are helped; but that can be very hard to measure. Instead, it probably becomes how much money they raise. It thus becomes a chase after money.

    A guy I know set up a small and very focussed charity, and aimed for 95% of all money raised to go to the cause. He succeeded through hard graft: things like getting local firms to donate stamps that he could use to mail items, and donating his time for free.
    Once a charity's income goes above a certain level, it will need part- or full-time professional employees, or else it will get into terrible trouble. That means you have to offer enough to make it worth their while, albeit not necessarily the same as a commercial organisation. People who support the aims of the charity ought to expect some level of discount, compared to the private sector (eg when I was working as legacy officer and in house solicitor for a charity a couple of years ago, I was paid £20,000 p.a., for 2 days a week).

    I'm surprised that 1,000 employees merit £100,000 + p.a.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,393
    George show know that politicians seeking to show they are up with the zeitgeist never ends well (Artic Monkeys anyone) but he was probably a little buoyant after another truly stunning set of employment figures yesterday. This article has a good summary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12053072/UK-unemployment-wages-pay-slowdown-jobs-employment.html

    All of the unemployment caused by Brown' incompetence has now been eliminated and youth unemployment is at its lowest for 9 years. Most of the EZ countries must weep as their more ambitious and better qualified seek better opportunities here.

    I simply do not believe that such continued level of growth in employment is consistent with a mere 2.5% growth this year. I think it is very likely that these figures will be increased to over 3% eventually. It just might take a few years and, by then, not be of interest to anyone but economic historians.
This discussion has been closed.