Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
I think that misunderstands the role of the ECJ. We see their decisions as political because they are supposed to enforce what are, ultimately, political treaties. I am not sure it would be possible to point to an example where, for political reasons, the ECJ has interpreted the law in conflict with the existing treaties.
People believe that they are using their interpretation of treaties to further the cause of Ever Closer Union. The point is that Ever Closer Union is exactly what the treaties encompass. The ECJ is only following its remit.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than online polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Not really, I've looked at the evidence, presented by ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh. ComRes have turned down clients because they refuse to do online polls for the EU Referendum as they don't like the sampling issues it causes.
If the phone polls start showing Leave leads, I'll still maintain my position about their accuracy.
I don't think you would. You'd find a reason why they weren't accurate.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Yep. I am afraid TSE's position as an informed and balanced opinion on this site has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few weeks. It is sad to see.
As a Top Gear fan, I note that the new BBC show starts May 29. As Monday at 9pm is the usual Top Gear slot on BBC America, presumably we'll see it the next day.
From what I hear all has not gone well so far. Apparently a producer has quit over Chris Evans' attitude, Evans and LeBlanc have a problematic relationship, and Evans is prone to car sickness. Combine that with a lineup of something like 8 hosts, and what are the expectations for the show?
Personally for me very low. I am waiting for the new Clarkson/May/Hammond incarnation on Amazon which I hope will be the natural successor to Top Gear rather than the BBC zombie version
2nd!! so close! Congrats foxinsocksuk - well played...
Yes, hard lines MrRufus - you were indeed exceptionally close, yet you didn't seemingly merit so much as a mention. By my reckoning you deserve at least the kindle version of the book awarded to the winner!
As a Top Gear fan, I note that the new BBC show starts May 29. As Monday at 9pm is the usual Top Gear slot on BBC America, presumably we'll see it the next day.
From what I hear all has not gone well so far. Apparently a producer has quit over Chris Evans' attitude, Evans and LeBlanc have a problematic relationship, and Evans is prone to car sickness. Combine that with a lineup of something like 8 hosts, and what are the expectations for the show?
There has been near daily stories in the British tabloids of it not going well and all the history of Evans being an arse (and that after a number of years of being quite charming, the worst of his traits coming out with the making). I have no idea if it is all some weird way of building the hype or if it really true.
As a Top Gear fan, I note that the new BBC show starts May 29. As Monday at 9pm is the usual Top Gear slot on BBC America, presumably we'll see it the next day.
From what I hear all has not gone well so far. Apparently a producer has quit over Chris Evans' attitude, Evans and LeBlanc have a problematic relationship, and Evans is prone to car sickness. Combine that with a lineup of something like 8 hosts, and what are the expectations for the show?
Lower than snake testicles.
The charm of Top Gear was the interaction of Clarkson/May/Hammond.
To borrow a film analogy, the charm of the Despicable Me movies was the interaction of the minions and Gru.
But in The Minions movie, there was no Gru, just minions, and it was ok, you need both Gru and the minions.
On the London FPTP vote, three of the four pollsters overstated Khan's lead ( YG by 2, Opinium by 3, Survation by 6). The sole exception was Comres which overstated in Goldsmith's favour with it's online poll by 2.
All polls showed Labour to be more motivated.
In Scotland, Green and SNP both consistently overstated while the Tories were universally understated. Face to Face and telephone polls around the worst at picking up the right wing bloc of Tory/UKIP.
Polls showed Tories most motivated.
I'd say the pattern generally is overstating the left.
The American electorate won't take kindly to being mocked by this unfunny Limey twerp.
He is actually pretty funny and got his own show on HBO because he was popular in the US as a "reporter" on Jon Stewarts Daily Show. Stewart's replacement on that show, Trevor Noah, not funny.
Noah seems like a generally funny guy to me, but a major problem I have is it seems obvious he's reading a script about things he may know or care little about. Maybe that's not the case, but despite both being foreigners, I actually buy that Oliver cares about the things he rants about, not least because while he indulges in the partisan anti-republican stuff, he also tackles general societal ills in american society, as he sees it, even ones Democrats may not even agree with him on all the time.
I think those are good points. I rarely watch the Daily Show these days because it doesn't really make me laugh. Where as Oliver's show I find very funny, reminds a bit of Mark Thomas Comedy Product back in the day.
Jon Stewart is a terrible loss and I wish he would get back on the telly. He was so much more subtle and so much funnier than any of his imitators.
I think the subtlety is a key point. There was no mistaking which side of politics he was in favour of, and he would be partisanly blunt and castigating at times, but compared to the new Daily Show, which has had some fun segments, he was practically a neutral by comparison.
The one in charge of updating MSPs profiles has done some mix ups with the photos...unless Annabelle Ewing, Sandra White and Christina McKelvie have had a recent sex change that I missed. And Humza Yousaf has morphed into Sandra White. Stewart Stevenson is Alex Rowley. Sandra White is David Stewart. Alex Rowley has the pic of a lady. Derek McKay is Ken MacIntosh. Richard Lochlead is Johann Lamont. Kenneth Gibson is Linda Fabiani, Fabiani is Ewing and so on..
2. The REMAINIANS are whistling to keep their spirits up and relying on the wrongness of online polls. This strikes me as stupid. No one knows with euroref. The vote is sui generis. Turnout is all and that is utterly unpredictable.
Indeed.
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
That's good enough for me. After all ComRes and Populus have vested interests and I've more confidence in Anthony Wells than Matt Singh who I've never previously heard of!
Isn't it just conceivably possible that the likes of The Sun have switched to ComRes because they offered the newspaper a better deal ?.... Stranger things have happened.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
That's good enough for me. After all ComRes and Populus have vested interests and I've more confidence in Anthony Wells than Matt Singh who I've never previously heard of!
Matt Singh is about the only forecaster who predicted a Con Maj in the last days before the last election.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Yep. I am afraid TSE's position as an informed and balanced opinion on this site has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few weeks. It is sad to see.
So if they are correct. (I had already read the Populus article but not the Comres one) then why is it that since the beginning of the year the phone polls have shown a considerable closing of the gap with a steady fall in support for Remain whilst the online polls have shown it neck and neck with not much change? It appears it is the Phone polls that are changing position not the online polls.
@JamieRoss7: For the select few nerds who care about this kind of thing, I hear Johann Lamont is looking most likely to be the new presiding officer.
Nicola cannot spare an MSP for the gig this time. To be honest SLAB can't spare Johann Lamont either. With the benefit of hindsight her leadership was a golden age.
Polling companies do so much weighting and reweighting of their models that it is a bit difficult to know what to believe.
Remarkably, if Yougov hadn't carried out their reweighting in March 2015 when their polls had been showing a Tory lead, I am convinced most of what followed with polling credibility would never have happened.
The unweighted data in Opinium, Yougov, ICM was pointing to much better Tory numbers than their headlines.
A couple of online pollsters are absolute garbage, mind.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
That's good enough for me. After all ComRes and Populus have vested interests and I've more confidence in Anthony Wells than Matt Singh who I've never previously heard of!
Matt Singh is about the only forecaster who predicted a Con Maj in the last days before the last election.
But one swallow doesn't make a summer.
Really? As I recall our own JackW, Rod Crosby and stjohn, etc were all pretty close to making such a forecast. It was the pollsters who were painting a very different picture and thereby over-influencing the market.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
That's good enough for me. After all ComRes and Populus have vested interests and I've more confidence in Anthony Wells than Matt Singh who I've never previously heard of!
Isn't it just conceivably possible that the likes of The Sun have switched to ComRes because they offered the newspaper a better deal ?.... Stranger things have happened.
Matt Singh is the guy who runs Number Crunch website, the chap who predicted the polls were out at the GE and forecast a Tory Majority.
Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
I think that misunderstands the role of the ECJ. We see their decisions as political because they are supposed to enforce what are, ultimately, political treaties. I am not sure it would be possible to point to an example where, for political reasons, the ECJ has interpreted the law in conflict with the existing treaties.
People believe that they are using their interpretation of treaties to further the cause of Ever Closer Union. The point is that Ever Closer Union is exactly what the treaties encompass. The ECJ is only following its remit.
The difference between the way that a UK court interprets statutes and the CJE does is stark. I agree that this is not an accident or something that they came up with themselves but an agenda that they were set. Nothing in Cameron's renegotiation comes even close to addressing this issue. Until it is addressed the EU will be driven forwards to ever closer union by the Court.
OGH always used to say that everyone's Gold Standard was the polling company which produced a result they liked, I have no reason to move away from his advice. Anyone saying that the phone polls are more accurate is guessing.
After today, perhaps Cameron needs to encourage people to vote with a show of tanks and military vehicles around June 22/23.
It worked for Ruth.
The British Army can't be expected to tip up just willy nilly. It costs millions of pound to move the Generals around. Add that to the fact that each movement of a General is overseen by 482 members of staff, and it can't go ahead if any of them are on holiday... well no, Cameron will have to do without his parade.
Oh god if only that was true. The main problem with the CJE (as we are supposed to call it now) is that it is a political court that indulges in "purposive" interpretations of the Treaties and the regulations. If it could be counted on as an impartial, judicial arbiter our position in the EU would be a lot more tolerable.
I think that misunderstands the role of the ECJ. We see their decisions as political because they are supposed to enforce what are, ultimately, political treaties. I am not sure it would be possible to point to an example where, for political reasons, the ECJ has interpreted the law in conflict with the existing treaties.
People believe that they are using their interpretation of treaties to further the cause of Ever Closer Union. The point is that Ever Closer Union is exactly what the treaties encompass. The ECJ is only following its remit.
The difference between the way that a UK court interprets statutes and the CJE does is stark. I agree that this is not an accident or something that they came up with themselves but an agenda that they were set. Nothing in Cameron's renegotiation comes even close to addressing this issue. Until it is addressed the EU will be driven forwards to ever closer union by the Court.
Agreed unfortunately. I do sometimes get frustrated with people criticising the ECJ as if it is failing to follow its remit. It is following its remit exactly as it was designed. We should be attacking its original design (as you are doing ) rather than attacking decisions which it makes which are entirely within its guidelines and fulfilling its purpose.
This is why the idea that Cameron somehow has managed to negotiate something that cannot be challenged at the ECJ is such a mistaken view.
Yes, the Nats are talking up the possibility of 2 opposition MSPs dying or being forced out and winning both by-elections.
Given their record at Westminster, that seems a bit desperate
From memory they won 59 out of 73 constituencies. So there are only 14 non SNP constituency members who could trigger a bye election. Any list MSP standing down would be replaced by another placeman off the list.
Maybe those 14 should invest in some life insurance?
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold
Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have
done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted
accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls,
and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Yep. I am afraid TSE's position as an informed and balanced opinion on this site has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few weeks. It is sad to see.
So if they are correct. (I had already read the Populus article but not the Comres one) then why is it that since the beginning of the year the phone polls have shown a considerable closing of the gap with a steady fall in support for Remain whilst the online polls have shown it neck and neck with not much change? It appears it is the Phone polls that are changing position not the online polls.
I think online polls have samples that are more politically engaged than the average person*
Whilst phone polls are a bit random in their samples, and Dave's deal has not gone down well, and I said yesterday, Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
*At the last general election there was a YouGov poll that had 20 million voters watching one of the debates, when it was closer to six million.
I wish you Leavers would stop posting arrant nonsense.
The ICM phone polls have always been the Gold Standard, not their online poll, which their weekly tracker is.
I've stated many times why I think the phones polls are more accurate, ComRes, Populus, and Matt Singh of Number Cruncher have done research why.
Ask yourself, why did The Sun, drop YouGov and replace them with ComRes phone polls for their EU Referendum polls, they wanted accurate polling.
I've got a stint as Guest Editor coming up, which covers the last three weeks of the referendum campaign, I'll be covering all the polls, and no matter what I write, some PB Leavers will criticise and complain.
I'm looking forward to it.
The phone polls are "more accurate" because you like their numbers.
If online polls were giving better numbers for Remain than phone polls, they'd be " more accurate."
Yep. I am afraid TSE's position as an informed and balanced opinion on this site has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few weeks. It is sad to see.
(1) Online polls provide a “don’t know” option, whereas telephone polls generally do not, recording only verbatim “don’t know” responses. Phone polls have therefore produced fewer “don’t knows”, with undecided voters compelled to choose, most often to the benefit of the status quo option. Explains about 1/3rd of the gap. That makes sense. (2) Half of the gap is accounted for by the difference in the composition of the online and phone samples by social attitude. Harder to reach people (who need to be called multiple times) tend to have more liberal views than those who respond quickly, and more in favour of the EU. Ok, but do hard-to-reach people vote? (3) Phone polls also usually pick up the less politically engaged and catch greater numbers of less tribal voters than online samples. In a “low information” referendum, such voters may default to the status quo. Valid point.
Trouble is they all have less salience as the vote approaches, the online/phone polls are converging, and it requires the more socially liberal and harder-to-reach to vote, plus those soft Remainers (who might declare online as undecided) to actually turnout and vote.
I think online polls have samples that are more politically engaged than the average person*
Whilst phone polls are a bit random in their samples, and Dave's deal has not gone down well, and I said yesterday, Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
*At the last general election there was a YouGov poll that had 20 million voters watching one of the debates, when it was closer to six million.
Prof. Stephen Fisher of Oxford University earned brownie points galore for correctly forecasting the result of the 2010 GE, yet he was way adrift last May, forecasting in his final assessment that Ed Miliband had a 58% chance of becoming the next Prime Minster ...... oh dear!
Regarding averaging between online and phone polls:
* Fisher says it's half-way between the two [1] * Singh says phone polls are closer to the truth,[2] * Drummond thinks it's in there somewhere but fuctifinos[3] * I think you should not average the two as they come from different populations
I think online polls have samples that are more politically engaged than the average person*
Whilst phone polls are a bit random in their samples, and Dave's deal has not gone down well, and I said yesterday, Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
*At the last general election there was a YouGov poll that had 20 million voters watching one of the debates, when it was closer to six million.
Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
"bit" LOL
Leave's been a bit crap too.
If Leave do lose this narrowly, they will regret all those months when Vote Leave and Leave.EU were intent to re-enact The Life of Brian.
(1) Online polls provide a “don’t know” option, whereas telephone polls generally do not, recording only verbatim “don’t know” responses. Phone polls have therefore produced fewer “don’t knows”, with undecided voters compelled to choose, most often to the benefit of the status quo option. Explains about 1/3rd of the gap. That makes sense. (2) Half of the gap is accounted for by the difference in the composition of the online and phone samples by social attitude. Harder to reach people (who need to be called multiple times) tend to have more liberal views than those who respond quickly, and more in favour of the EU. Ok, but do hard-to-reach people vote? (3) Phone polls also usually pick up the less politically engaged and catch greater numbers of less tribal voters than online samples. In a “low information” referendum, such voters may default to the status quo. Valid point.
Trouble is they all have less salience as the vote approaches, the online/phone polls are converging, and it requires the more socially liberal and harder-to-reach to vote, plus those soft Remainers (who might declare online as undecided) to actually turnout and vote.
The other point I don't see in the articles (although I may have missed it) is the point we have raised often on here about phone pollsters not catching those who refuse to answer unknown numbers or withheld numbers. My own view is that such people are more likely to be older and more likely (as we see from other polling) to be leaning Leave. The phone polls can't even take this into account because if someone doesn't answer the phone you can't make any judgement about their age/social status.
(1) Online polls provide a “don’t know” option, whereas telephone polls generally do not, recording only verbatim “don’t know” responses. Phone polls have therefore produced fewer “don’t knows”, with undecided voters compelled to choose, most often to the benefit of the status quo option. Explains about 1/3rd of the gap. That makes sense. (2) Half of the gap is accounted for by the difference in the composition of the online and phone samples by social attitude. Harder to reach people (who need to be called multiple times) tend to have more liberal views than those who respond quickly, and more in favour of the EU. Ok, but do hard-to-reach people vote? (3) Phone polls also usually pick up the less politically engaged and catch greater numbers of less tribal voters than online samples. In a “low information” referendum, such voters may default to the status quo. Valid point.
Trouble is they all have less salience as the vote approaches, the online/phone polls are converging, and it requires the more socially liberal and harder-to-reach to vote, plus those soft Remainers (who might declare online as undecided) to actually turnout and vote.
The other point I don't see in the articles (although I may have missed it) is the point we have raised often on here about phone pollsters not catching those who refuse to answer unknown numbers or withheld numbers. My own view is that such people are more likely to be older and more likely (as we see from other polling) to be leaning Leave. The phone polls can't even take this into account because if someone doesn't answer the phone you can't make any judgement about their age/social status.
It explains why HMG is using Project Fear as the foundation of the Remain campaign: they want to frighten the apathetic and less tribal into the polling booths to level up the scores.
@JamieRoss7: For the select few nerds who care about this kind of thing, I hear Johann Lamont is looking most likely to be the new presiding officer.
Nicola cannot spare an MSP for the gig this time. To be honest SLAB can't spare Johann Lamont either. With the benefit of hindsight her leadership was a golden age.
@JamieRoss7: For the select few nerds who care about this kind of thing, I hear Johann Lamont is looking most likely to be the new presiding officer.
Nicola cannot spare an MSP for the gig this time. To be honest SLAB can't spare Johann Lamont either. With the benefit of hindsight her leadership was a golden age.
All Labour. It is almost as if they were not relevant any more.
"Discounting “don’t knows”, two-thirds or more of older voters support Brexit, compared with only one-third of younger ones. In this respect Britain is unlike other countries, where older voters favour the EU more than younger ones do. "
Surely defence should be the purview of NATO, and not the EU. The fact it is being stated as though it is (or indeed actually is), is one of the problems people have with the EU.
Polls tend to gain credibility when they reach a stage as and when there is very little movement between two or more consecutive polls from the same firm ...... much as we are seeing today from ICM.
Incidentally, have other BBers noticed that ICM appears to have lost the much-coveted cachet of being referred to as "The Gold Standard" Pollster from the likes of OGH, TSE and other prominent Remainers, ever since it started showing LEAVE as being ahead? Funny that!
Their point would be that ICM PHONE polls are the "gold standard" - and we are talking about ICM online EU polls.
I don't recall if and when the former ICM admirers (of whom there are many), introduced a distinction in their level of confidence between the pollster's phone and online polls. Of course it suits their cause to argue such a case now. If the pollsters themselves seriously believed that their online surveys produced inferior results compared with those conducted by phone, then surely they would cease undertaking the former.
Anthony Wells seems confident that online polls are accurate.
That's good enough for me. After all ComRes and Populus have vested interests and I've more confidence in Anthony Wells than Matt Singh who I've never previously heard of!
Matt Singh is about the only forecaster who predicted a Con Maj in the last days before the last election.
But one swallow doesn't make a summer.
Really? As I recall our own JackW, Rod Crosby and stjohn, etc were all pretty close to making such a forecast. It was the pollsters who were painting a very different picture and thereby over-influencing the market.
Still pretty gutted that I didn't forecast a Tory maj despite having a bet on it....
@JamieRoss7: For the select few nerds who care about this kind of thing, I hear Johann Lamont is looking most likely to be the new presiding officer.
Nicola cannot spare an MSP for the gig this time. To be honest SLAB can't spare Johann Lamont either. With the benefit of hindsight her leadership was a golden age.
Hijacking this thread. Does the Scottish Parliament have a similar arrangement as the Commons? Where there is a Speaker and several deputies, and they are drawn from more than one party. Seems a bit unfair to make only one party lose one of its MSPs.
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
There is anything but message discipline from Remain at the moment. There is definite insult discipline, but the message is all over the place. And continually overstating the risks undermines sensible and valid points.
If I were advising Remain at the moment, I would suggest they try and recruit John Major's election team from 1992, not Cameron's from 2015 - the former created a mass electoral coalition, the latter used a few facebook ads to win an election via targetting. Which do you think would be more useful in a straight up and down vote.
I'd also try and secretly draft Mandelson. If all this bunkum strategy is GO's doing, he has well and truly lost his touch.
2. The REMAINIANS are whistling to keep their spirits up and relying on the wrongness of online polls. This strikes me as stupid. No one knows with euroref. The vote is sui generis. Turnout is all and that is utterly unpredictable.
Indeed.
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
In the last Euros in 2014, the kippers did come first, but even then on 26.6% so very far from a majority. Add in the other anti-EU fringe parties and it comes to 30% ish. The Tories were on 23%
So even on a Euro turnout of 30-35% it is far from clear that Leave has it made.
2. The REMAINIANS are whistling to keep their spirits up and relying on the wrongness of online polls. This strikes me as stupid. No one knows with euroref. The vote is sui generis. Turnout is all and that is utterly unpredictable.
Indeed.
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
In the last Euros in 2014, the kippers did come first, but even then on 26.6% so very far from a majority. Add in the other anti-EU fringe parties and it comes to 30% ish. The Tories were on 23%
So even on a Euro turnout of 30-35% it is far from clear that Leave has it made.
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean the same rules apply though.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
I can't see the justification in the story, but really what is the perceived problem with allowing in Afghan interpreters (and Iraqi interpreters)? It surely doesn't set a precedent for any tom, dick and harry, as it's for a particular reason they would be allowed, and even if it means they can bring their families along later and so the small number of interpreters allowed means more allowed in than it look, what's the problem with that either? I'd say it was earned.
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean the same rules apply though.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
@JamieRoss7: For the select few nerds who care about this kind of thing, I hear Johann Lamont is looking most likely to be the new presiding officer.
Nicola cannot spare an MSP for the gig this time. To be honest SLAB can't spare Johann Lamont either. With the benefit of hindsight her leadership was a golden age.
Gordon Brown sabotaging Wendy Alexander after her "bring it on" response to idea of first term Independence referendum by the minority SNP administration may go down as the worst act for the health of Labour as any.
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean the same rules apply though.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean the same rules apply though.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
He wants to, but he's not going to.
You hope.
I'm meeting someone from Vote Leave tomorrow, I'll see what they say.
@TSE - I see Remain's campaign grid remains alive and well.
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
Many of the architects of last year's election victory are working for Remain, the one thing I learned from that campaign.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean the same rules apply though.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
I would hazard a guess that another referendum would be held within 10 years of a vote to remain in the EU. The direction of travel required to enable the EU to function properly is clear and as soon as they realise they can no longer paper over the cracks another referendum will be required.
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
If it's a huge win then that would mean the Tory voters must have gone more for Remain than Leave, so presumably the party would be wounded and much changed, but not destroyed as fighting an overwhelming victory too much would look bad.
The problem is if Remain win it will more likely be a small victory, and the Tories at best evenly split but more probably pro-Leave, and are severely damaged.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
My own theory based on nothing but intuition is Dave wants to win this by a large majority on a high turnout to settle the matter for a generation.
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
Exactly right. It's an absolutely massive potential prize if he can bring it off, and a massive disaster if he can't. Of course he's throwing the kitchen sink at it; he's not daft.
The massive potential prize of.....destroying the Tory party?
The massive potential prize of rescuing the Tory Party from this issue which has been a millstone around its neck for a quarter of a century.
2. The REMAINIANS are whistling to keep their spirits up and relying on the wrongness of online polls. This strikes me as stupid. No one knows with euroref. The vote is sui generis. Turnout is all and that is utterly unpredictable.
Indeed.
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
In the last Euros in 2014, the kippers did come first, but even then on 26.6% so very far from a majority. Add in the other anti-EU fringe parties and it comes to 30% ish. The Tories were on 23%
So even on a Euro turnout of 30-35% it is far from clear that Leave has it made.
My point is that at a euro election, UKIP consistently outperform their general/local election results.
I can't see the justification in the story, but really what is the perceived problem with allowing in Afghan interpreters (and Iraqi interpreters)? It surely doesn't set a precedent for any tom, dick and harry, as it's for a particular reason they would be allowed, and even if it means they can bring their families along later and so the small number of interpreters allowed means more allowed in than it look, what's the problem with that either? I'd say it was earned.
Just out of curiosity, I'm writing a thread based on two different scenarios, and I'd like PBers thoughts on each scenario, so I can flesh out the piece
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
I find it hard to believe that a party will get more than 50% of the vote, or exceed the number of Remain/Leave votes.
Comments
People believe that they are using their interpretation of treaties to further the cause of Ever Closer Union. The point is that Ever Closer Union is exactly what the treaties encompass. The ECJ is only following its remit.
http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/03/polls-apart/
and
http://www.comres.co.uk/eu-referendum-all-still-to-play-for-by-not-neck-and-neck/
The charm of Top Gear was the interaction of Clarkson/May/Hammond.
To borrow a film analogy, the charm of the Despicable Me movies was the interaction of the minions and Gru.
But in The Minions movie, there was no Gru, just minions, and it was ok, you need both Gru and the minions.
You must be a devotee of my ARSE too .... as all winners are ....
On the London FPTP vote, three of the four pollsters overstated Khan's lead ( YG by 2, Opinium by 3, Survation by 6). The sole exception was Comres which overstated in Goldsmith's favour with it's online poll by 2.
All polls showed Labour to be more motivated.
In Scotland, Green and SNP both consistently overstated while the Tories were universally understated. Face to Face and telephone polls around the worst at picking up the right wing bloc of Tory/UKIP.
Polls showed Tories most motivated.
I'd say the pattern generally is overstating the left.
www.parliament.scot/msps/current-msps.aspx
How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A lot is going to come down to whether turnout patterns and motivations are more like a European election or a general election. Some people (Mark Senior this morning comes to mind) are convinced it will be more like a general election. I'm not so sure.
Isn't it just conceivably possible that the likes of The Sun have switched to ComRes because they offered the newspaper a better deal ?.... Stranger things have happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36252487
They make it sound a bit like Mercury is doing something unusual.
Poor old Mercury. It has a really tough gig.
But one swallow doesn't make a summer.
Remarkably, if Yougov hadn't carried out their reweighting in March 2015 when their polls had been showing a Tory lead, I am convinced most of what followed with polling credibility would never have happened.
The unweighted data in Opinium, Yougov, ICM was pointing to much better Tory numbers than their headlines.
A couple of online pollsters are absolute garbage, mind.
Phone polls cost a lot more than online polls.
Given their record at Westminster, that seems a bit desperate
This is why the idea that Cameron somehow has managed to negotiate something that cannot be challenged at the ECJ is such a mistaken view.
Maybe those 14 should invest in some life insurance?
Whilst phone polls are a bit random in their samples, and Dave's deal has not gone down well, and I said yesterday, Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
*At the last general election there was a YouGov poll that had 20 million voters watching one of the debates, when it was closer to six million.
(1) Online polls provide a “don’t know” option, whereas telephone polls generally do not, recording only verbatim “don’t know” responses. Phone polls have therefore produced fewer “don’t knows”, with undecided voters compelled to choose, most often to the benefit of the status quo option. Explains about 1/3rd of the gap. That makes sense.
(2) Half of the gap is accounted for by the difference in the composition of the online and phone samples by social attitude. Harder to reach people (who need to be called multiple times) tend to have more liberal views than those who respond quickly, and more in favour of the EU. Ok, but do hard-to-reach people vote?
(3) Phone polls also usually pick up the less politically engaged and catch greater numbers of less tribal voters than online samples. In a “low information” referendum, such voters may default to the status quo. Valid point.
Trouble is they all have less salience as the vote approaches, the online/phone polls are converging, and it requires the more socially liberal and harder-to-reach to vote, plus those soft Remainers (who might declare online as undecided) to actually turnout and vote.
Remain's campaign has been a bit crap.
"bit" LOL
* Fisher says it's half-way between the two [1]
* Singh says phone polls are closer to the truth,[2]
* Drummond thinks it's in there somewhere but fuctifinos[3]
* I think you should not average the two as they come from different populations
[1] http://electionsetc.com/2016/03/14/first-forecast-for-the-brexit-referendum/
[2] http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Polls-Apart-29-March-2016.pdf
[3] http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/opinium-blog/some-thoughts-eu-referendum-polls
If Leave do lose this narrowly, they will regret all those months when Vote Leave and Leave.EU were intent to re-enact The Life of Brian.
I honestly expected Remain to be in a pretty comfortable position by now. They are not. If the above assumption is not valid anything could happen.
Will it work?
Dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729774557121368065
11 hours 11 minutes 11 seconds
Interesting finding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/10/the-pb-ge15-competition-results-from-the-april-round/
I suspect they have a scare story for every one of the next 45 days.
*PS. But each of those five are well-known europhiles.
I'm expecting to see some market shift by the end of this week.
Relentless message discipline, keep on repeating the same lines over and over again (long term economic plan)
I think we'll see Brexit = The biggest risk ever lines non stop.
Plus our allies want us to Remain, whilst only Trump, Putin, and Le Pen want us to Leave.
Just look at the latest Remain poster, not quite the Ed in Salmond's pocket but gets the message across.
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/729724540167856128
But the messages have to be believable.
If I were advising Remain at the moment, I would suggest they try and recruit John Major's election team from 1992, not Cameron's from 2015 - the former created a mass electoral coalition, the latter used a few facebook ads to win an election via targetting. Which do you think would be more useful in a straight up and down vote.
I'd also try and secretly draft Mandelson. If all this bunkum strategy is GO's doing, he has well and truly lost his touch.
If only these guys were in the peaceful EU...
http://news.sky.com/gallery/1692714/violence-as-greece-passes-reforms
The latest is Boris: 'I'm fighting for freedom'.
I mean, c'mon. This is about whether on balance we're better off in or out, not a rerun of WWII against Nazi tyranny.
So even on a Euro turnout of 30-35% it is far from clear that Leave has it made.
This is a national referendum where over 50% of the support base which won last year's general election for the Conservatives - and the most reliable at turning out at that - are now voting for the other side.
And we shouldn't overestimate the impact that the GE campaign had - it was extremely effective in target marginals, but the national polling didn't move that much. It's just the polls were out by about 3-4% either way.
Of course, small differences in the polls can lead to big differences in seats. But in a national referendum every vote counts, and turnout (differential or otherwise) is less predictable.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729780957859950592
I mean he's destroyed the Lib Dems, driven Labour mad, he just wants to destroy the Tory EU obsessives and make it a hat trick.
I'm meeting someone from Vote Leave tomorrow, I'll see what they say.
The problem is if Remain win it will more likely be a small victory, and the Tories at best evenly split but more probably pro-Leave, and are severely damaged.
Scenario 1
We vote to Leave narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to keep us in the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result
Scenario 2
We vote to Remain narrowly (say less than 5% majority), there's an early election, and the party/parties that have a manifesto pledge to TAKE us out of the EU form the next government, and say they have a bigger/better mandate to overturn the EU referendum result