Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember the 2009 Euro elections when ICM was the pollster

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember the 2009 Euro elections when ICM was the pollster most out with UKIP

Inevitably after last night’s ICM poll which has UKIP down to 7% with the CON and LAN level-pegging it is inevitable that people will focus on the firm particularly its record with Farage’s party.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    First! A triumph for insomnia...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    O/T:

    A furious debate is taking place on Wikipedia as to whether or not UKIP should have a special section in the "Next UK General Election" article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#UKIP.3F
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

  • Lol - and so the demonisationn of ICM continues - whatever happened to the gold standard? I always thought the rogue poll was the one where you don't like what it says. Anyway let's hope Tim et al have a good breakfast - another busy day looms.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    edited July 2013
    scampi said:

    Lol - and so the demonisationn of ICM continues - whatever happened to the gold standard? I always thought the rogue poll was the one where you don't like what it says. Anyway let's hope Tim et al have a good breakfast - another busy day looms.

    Mr Scampi, I'm, rather enjoying the symmetry in this

    ICM produces results the Guardian would rather not report and Yougov produces results The Sun doesn't like to report.

    Maybe they should swap pollsters.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013

    scampi said:

    Lol - and so the demonisationn of ICM continues - whatever happened to the gold standard? I always thought the rogue poll was the one where you don't like what it says. Anyway let's hope Tim et al have a good breakfast - another busy day looms.

    Mr Scampi, I'm, rather enjoying the symmetry in this

    ICM produces results the Guardian would rather not report and Yougov produces results The Sun doesn't like to report.

    Maybe they should swap pollsters.
    LOL - I have to congratulate The Guardian on leading with this poll on Page One - given that not so long ago they buried one ICM poll on page 34 that didn't suit their agenda and appeared not to publish the details of most of it until pressured.

    I'm not really sure that making a comparison with the EU2009 elections is terribly helpful since its a different system and a long time ago. What about ICM's performance saying in LE2010 or LE2011 or LE2012 or LE2013 or GE2010...for example... Or London Mayoralty?

    How close to the result were they then? They are the Gold Standard for a reason and have been for years on PB.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    Interesting they were out by 620% on BNP, who had a massive shy vote. Surely this shy vote also carries over to UKIP as they are demonised too?

  • The Tory haters are desperate for UKIP to poll well and destroy their chances. What gets lost in all this fluff is the basic underlying underlying factor, namely that the most likely determining factor of the next GE will probably be the state of the British economy.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    ICM did NOT carry out a Scottish poll during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The poll you reference was carried out in March when the other firms had Labour ahead.

    Your comment is a distortion

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited July 2013

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    ICM did NOT carry out a Scottish poll during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The poll you reference was carried out in March when the other firms had Labour ahead.

    Your comment is a distortion

    It will be news to most people that there was no election campaign going on in Scotland in March 2011.

    Ipsos MORI carried out a poll in early February 2011 that was a lot closer to the final result than ICM managed over a month closer to polling day. Ditto the Scottish Opinion poll for the Mail on Sunday with the same fieldwork dates as ICM.

    Please note that the early February Ipsos MORI had the SNP ahead of Labour, so it is simply not true that "the other firms had Labour ahead".
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The Neuberger Report into LCP looks truly appalling - the Conveyor Belt of Frightening Death seems a more appropriate name for it. How could ANYONE be a nurse or doctor however junior and let this happen? It's not 'misunderstanding' guidelines - leaving patients to die of thirst or chemically koshed to get them off is wrong at a fundamental level. It's even worse than Stafford - this was done deliberately to patients marked down for death.

    " Patients could not choose to die at times that suited the NHS, she said, and it made “no sense” that the care they needed was not available around the clock. “Some of what we uncovered was truly dreadful, especially for those patients whose condition deteriorated at the start of a bank holiday weekend, when consultants were off on holiday and junior doctors left in charge,” she told The Telegraph.

    The review frequently uncovered accounts in which families were shouted at by nurses for trying to give water to desperately thirsty relatives, she said. Too many staff had misinterpreted guidance which in fact says that nutrition and hydration should be given for as long as possible. Equally common were tales in which patients had been left to “get on with” dying – without their care being reviewed, or even observations taken.

    The report described “serious concern” about the lack of staff to care for the dying, and their level of competence. “The review panel repeatedly heard stories of poor standards of basic care and a lack of staff and equipment over weekends and out of hours; this also prevented some people from being able to come home to die, as they wished. There were numerous accounts of no access to the palliative care teams outside office hours and at weekends, both in acute hospitals and in the community,” it found.

    Decisions to place patients on the care pathway were being taken by the most junior inexperienced doctors, often in the middle of the night. Repeatedly, the panel — made up of medical, legal, ethical experts, and patient campaigners — heard accounts of relatives who left a patient who was able to talk to them, only to return and find that without warning, the patient was heavily sedated, and unable to eat or drink..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181143/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-failings-shock-independent-panel.html
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Did any pollsters do well at the Euros? It is a very tough election to predict, like local elections, because many people throw normal thinking out of the window to send a message rather than elect someone. The big question is whether GE2015 will be thought of in a similar way.
  • Oh Lord - Enuf already about Scotland - booorrrriiiinnnngggg!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And this.

    “Among the worst stories were of people on the Liverpool Care Pathway for days, going into weeks, without communication or review or discussion; and also desperate stories of desperate people who are longing for a drink of water who were, through misunderstanding of the Liverpool Care Pathway and poor care, denied a drink.”

    Dr Dennis Cox, chairman of the clinical sub group of the panel, added: “When we started to meet the families to discuss their stories we were genuinely shocked to hear what had been happening.”

    The panel was disturbed that the end-of-life care regime was being used “as an excuse for poor-quality care”. Lady Neuberger said the panel was so concerned by what it had encountered that it had agreed, at its own initiative, to continue reviewing the progress of the NHS until significant changes were made.

    She said the group was suspicious that the treatment of the dying betrayed “a considerable amount of age discrimination” in the way the NHS dealt with the elderly, a finding that echoed the report of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire Hospital Foundation trust.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    scampi said:

    Oh Lord - Enuf already about Scotland - booorrrriiiinnnngggg!

    Scotland is part of the UK, and therefore part of the discussions surrounding UK politics.

    If you don't want to discuss Scottish politics on a blog about UK politics then feel free to campaign for a Yes vote. No objections from me.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    OGH - you note that 2009 poll but the Con share of 27.7 vs 30 isn't that far out.

    Labour's 24 vs 15.7% is where they overstated a major party at the expense of others.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    Today's YouGov gives Labour an increased lead on health up 2 to 12
    29 points among 2010 Lib Dems.
    The PB Tories are utterly deluded on health.

    quite so tim, whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    ICM did NOT carry out a Scottish poll during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The poll you reference was carried out in March when the other firms had Labour ahead.

    Your comment is a distortion

    Well there's a surprise a distortion from "Stuart Dickson"

    On the previous thread he repeatedly asked why I hadn't published the July 2008 ARSE prediction for the following general election despite the fact that I had advised him both yesterday morning and evening that no such prediction existed.

    The summer of 2008 was taken up with the US presidential election for which my ARSE enjoyed considerable success.

    I'm of the view that on this issue "Stuart Dickson" has achieved troll status and should be treated accordingly.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724



    whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    Mr Burnham's self-righteous defensiveness is epic - I can't recall another politician of his seniority getting so hot under the collar. Surely he must be reshuffled ASAP - EdM should never have given him the Sh SoS role, it was a car crash waiting to happen.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,525
    What seems to be coming through on the Liverpool Care Pathway issue is a massive lack of understanding by front-line ward staff ..... nurses and doctors ...... and/or training in what the pathway entails. The latter, of course is a joint responsibility of senior staff and management, and just might be the result of cutting staff levels.
    "Just in time" might be OK for supermarket deliveries, but "just enough when things are quiet" is inadequate in a hospital.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Today's YouGov gives Labour an increased lead on health up 2 to 12
    29 points among 2010 Lib Dems.
    The PB Tories are utterly deluded on health.

    quite so tim, whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    The Keogh report appears to show hospitals getting worse under the coalition.

    But we haven't seen it yet, nor the hospital mortality measures which many of the people at the weekend on here drooling over what they imagine to be in the report don't understand anyway.
    I'm sure Andy can give the nation the benefit of all those lessons he's been learning.

    Astounding to think he could have been Labour leader.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JackW said:

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    ICM did NOT carry out a Scottish poll during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The poll you reference was carried out in March when the other firms had Labour ahead.

    Your comment is a distortion

    Well there's a surprise a distortion from "Stuart Dickson"

    On the previous thread he repeatedly asked why I hadn't published the July 2008 ARSE prediction for the following general election despite the fact that I had advised him both yesterday morning and evening that no such prediction existed.

    The summer of 2008 was taken up with the US presidential election for which my ARSE enjoyed considerable success.

    I'm of the view that on this issue "Stuart Dickson" has achieved troll status and should be treated accordingly.
    So, just to be crystal clear Jack, are you stating that at no point during 2008 did you publish an ARSE projection for the next UK GE?

    I realise that you are enjoying dancing on the head of a pin with the "July" and "summer" bits, but let's be grown ups here: did you or did you not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008? And if you did, please provide the details so that we can compare them with the actual result.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Alanbrooke

    According to the DT - most of the trusts that were failing are improving - frankly I'm pretty impressed by that. Failing organisations with chronic mgt issues usually get a great deal worse as the good staff leave and no one any good wants to join - which is why we see schools closed and re-opened with a new name/regime when things have gone too far.

    Why the Tories are to blame for things that happened before they were in power looks like the desperate straw-clutching it is from Mr Burnham. And claiming his recommendations weren't followed? Eh? The Coalition has had the courage for a full drains up on the NHS - something Labour never did.

    "The publication of a review of high mortality rates at the 14 NHS Trusts, is likely to intensify a political row. Mr Burnham hits back in an article for the Telegraph website and claims the Conservatives must also accept some responsibility. He says that warnings he left when leaving office were not heeded. The row appears to mark an end to a fragile truce over poor hospital care. Following the mid-Staffs scandal, the Prime Minister did not seek to blame Mr Burnham.

    Up to 13,000 patients may have died avoidably since 2005 at the hospitals involved in today’s review. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS in England, is expected to warn of ongoing difficulties at about 10 of the trusts and hit squads will be sent in to close some services and rectify the problems. Downing Street said that executives should be held accountable and that “entire boards” could be sacked.

    The Telegraph understands that death rates at nine of the trusts have improved since the Coalition came to power, with the situation deteriorating at five. Experts claim that the death rates at some trusts are worse than at Mid-Staffs, where an inquiry blamed abysmal care for up to 1,300 deaths. Prof Sir Brian Jarman, of Imperial College London, who compiles mortality statistics, said yesterday that he had written to Mr Burnham, then still in office, in March 2010 warning of unusually high death rates at 25 NHS trusts – including seven of those now under investigation. He said: “Effectively nothing happened”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181220/Thousands-may-have-died-because-of-Labour-NHS-failings-Tory-MPs-claim.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Plato said:



    whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    Mr Burnham's self-righteous defensiveness is epic - I can't recall another politician of his seniority getting so hot under the collar. Surely he must be reshuffled ASAP - EdM should never have given him the Sh SoS role, it was a car crash waiting to happen.
    Good to see Ben Bradshaw coming out fighting to take the heat off Andy ... oh wait.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    I see Prof Jarman wrote to Mr Burnham personally too...

    "Six of the 14 hospitals which have been subject of Professor Keogh’s review were on the original list sent to Mr Burnham, now Labour’s shadow health secretary: Basildon, Tameside, Colchester, Blackpool, George Eliot in Warwickshire and United Lincolnshire.

    Separately, questions in Parliament suggested more than 1,500 further representations were made to Labour ministers about the trusts with high death rates.

    They included over 400 letters about United Lincolnshire, 300 letters about Blackpool and over 200 letters about Basildon...

    And Labour's response?

    A source close to Ed Miliband said: ‘In every one of these hospital trusts we are seeing standards declining, not because of what Andy Burnham did. This government has spent £3 billion on an unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS.'

    ‘We will reject what is a political attempt by this government to undermine the health service.’


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364765/20-000-extra-NHS-deaths-Labours-watch-amid-calls-site-inspectors-struggling-hospital.html#ixzz2ZBhpoEfF
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Today's YouGov gives Labour an increased lead on health up 2 to 12
    29 points among 2010 Lib Dems.
    The PB Tories are utterly deluded on health.

    quite so tim, whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    The Keogh report appears to show hospitals getting worse under the coalition.

    But we haven't seen it yet, nor the hospital mortality measures which many of the people at the weekend on here drooling over what they imagine to be in the report don't understand anyway.
    I'm sure Andy can give the nation the benefit of all those lessons he's been learning.

    Astounding to think he could have been Labour leader.

    We haven't seen the report yet

    So far all we have is the info Hunt leaked to friendly papers, and a rise in Labours lead following it by two points, four points among 2010 Lib Dems.

    And of course a lot of PB Tories working themselves up into a state of excitement over the last few days, but I don't thin k we need to take them too seriously.
    There's one big event that moved the polling on health over the last three years and it was Dave breaking his word on an NHS reorganisation.


    watching the Beeb the NHS reorganisation isn't the lead story so the media must be getting needlessly excited too. Still the good news is Andy will be on TV at 8.30 it's a fifty-fifty whether he bursts in to tears saying it's not fair or punches Susanna Reed on air.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Jeremy Hunt is delivering the Keogh Report at 1230 in HoC - I assume its embargoed until then.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    If anyone wants to watch some reasonably impartial coverage of this NHS report then fire uo Newsnight on iplayer.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited July 2013
    scampi said:

    The Tory haters are desperate for UKIP to poll well and destroy their chances. What gets lost in all this fluff is the basic underlying underlying factor, namely that the most likely determining factor of the next GE will probably be the state of the British economy.

    Except UKIP may do best in safe Tory and Labour seats, making less of an impact in the marginals.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Today's YouGov gives Labour an increased lead on health up 2 to 12
    29 points among 2010 Lib Dems.
    The PB Tories are utterly deluded on health.

    quite so tim, whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    The Keogh report appears to show hospitals getting worse under the coalition.

    But we haven't seen it yet, nor the hospital mortality measures which many of the people at the weekend on here drooling over what they imagine to be in the report don't understand anyway.
    I'm sure Andy can give the nation the benefit of all those lessons he's been learning.

    Astounding to think he could have been Labour leader.

    We haven't seen the report yet

    So far all we have is the info Hunt leaked to friendly papers, and a rise in Labours lead following it by two points, four points among 2010 Lib Dems.

    And of course a lot of PB Tories working themselves up into a state of excitement over the last few days, but I don't thin k we need to take them too seriously.
    There's one big event that moved the polling on health over the last three years and it was Dave breaking his word on an NHS reorganisation.


    watching the Beeb the NHS reorganisation isn't the lead story so the media must be getting needlessly excited too. Still the good news is Andy will be on TV at 8.30 it's a fifty-fifty whether he bursts in to tears saying it's not fair or punches Susanna Reed on air.

    As I say, the report allegedly claims problems have accelerated under the coalition, but we haven't seen it yet.
    And the only polling we have so far shows rises for Labour.

    In PB Toryworld we have lots of other things of course.
    is that your way of asking for a cat video ?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013

    JackW said:

    Remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections when ICM was the pollster most out with the SNP.

    ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.

    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    ICM did NOT carry out a Scottish poll during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. The poll you reference was carried out in March when the other firms had Labour ahead.

    Your comment is a distortion

    Well there's a surprise a distortion from "Stuart Dickson"

    On the previous thread he repeatedly asked why I hadn't published the July 2008 ARSE prediction for the following general election despite the fact that I had advised him both yesterday morning and evening that no such prediction existed.

    The summer of 2008 was taken up with the US presidential election for which my ARSE enjoyed considerable success.

    I'm of the view that on this issue "Stuart Dickson" has achieved troll status and should be treated accordingly.
    So, just to be crystal clear Jack, are you stating that at no point during 2008 did you publish an ARSE projection for the next UK GE?

    I realise that you are enjoying dancing on the head of a pin with the "July" and "summer" bits, but let's be grown ups here: did you or did you not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008? And if you did, please provide the details so that we can compare them with the actual result.
    I was crystal clear to your July 2008 question twice yesterday and again this morning. And now for the fourth time !!

    There was NO July 2008 UK ARSE projection.

    As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....

    Titters ....

    That's a clue ....

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Poor Francois is having difficulty convincing the commentariat that France is on the mend.

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2013/07/15/20002-20130715ARTFIG00446-les-economistes-doutent-de-la-reprise-annoncee-par-hollande.php
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    This is rather fun - Lord Ashcroft has put Peter Bone's Alternative Queen's Speech to the test.

    "Yet politicians should beware of using this argument as an excuse to pursue preoccupations of their own which few voters share. A good example of this occurred at the end of June in the form of the so-called Alternative Queen’s Speech, a raft of measures (why do measures always arrive on rafts?) put forward by a number of Tory backbenchers which are, according to Peter Bone MP, designed to “recapture the common ground, where most views are”.
    I decided to put this contention to the test in a poll. As I suspected, it turns out that many of the proposed new laws cover ground which is neither central nor common.

    Mr Bone’s favourite among this assortment of “true blue bills” is the proposal to name the August Bank Holiday “Margaret Thatcher Day”. Unfortunately it is also the least popular. Only 13% of voters thought this was a good idea (and only 9% of those who were told the idea had been put forward by Conservative MPs); two thirds did not. Even Tory voters disagreed with the policy by a margin of 23 points.

    The idea of allowing employees to opt out of the minimum wage was also strikingly unpopular, with only 23% agreeing. The suggestion of abolishing the Department of Energy and Climate Change won over a full quarter of the electorate, while privatising the BBC amassed the support of 28%. Less than a third also approved of scrapping the office of Deputy Prime Minister and ending subsidies to wind farms.

    I make no particular judgment on whether these are good ideas or not, or whether they constitute the “proper conservative policies” that Mr Bone and his colleagues claim (though it is at least debatable in some cases, such as banning the burka – how many Tories entered politics in order to tell people what to wear?) The point is that these proposals are supposed to be surpassingly popular, the antidote to compromise and muddle, the “mish-mash of inconsistent ideas that satisfy no-one”.

    Yet at least as instructive as the proportion of people agreeing with each proposal is the number who could not rouse themselves to an opinion one way or the other. For example, some (actually 39%, I can reveal) supported removing some of the UK’s waters from the Common Fisheries Policy, but nearly half had no view either way... read more http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/lord-ashcroft.html
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,551



    I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.

    Well, there wasn't much competition. Scandalously, there was no Scotland-only Westminster polling by anyone throughout the whole of 2004.
    I do recall that when Yougov did the first Scotland-wide poll in early 2005, and found the Scottish LDs at about 20%, you dismissed it as a "voodoo" poll.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    2 scandals: the report into excess mortality in 14 Trusts and the Liverpool Care Pathway.

    And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage .
    I suppose it is all part of the greater good for Ed Milliband to enter Number 10 by climbing over a pile of bodies.

    I despair.
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Today's YouGov gives Labour an increased lead on health up 2 to 12
    29 points among 2010 Lib Dems.
    The PB Tories are utterly deluded on health.

    quite so tim, whatever happens Labour mustn't move Andy Burnham, he could become the first MP to explode in an interview. His performances just get better.

    The Keogh report appears to show hospitals getting worse under the coalition.

    But we haven't seen it yet, nor the hospital mortality measures which many of the people at the weekend on here drooling over what they imagine to be in the report don't understand anyway.
    I'm sure Andy can give the nation the benefit of all those lessons he's been learning.

    Astounding to think he could have been Labour leader.

    We haven't seen the report yet

    So far all we have is the info Hunt leaked to friendly papers, and a rise in Labours lead following it by two points, four points among 2010 Lib Dems.

    And of course a lot of PB Tories working themselves up into a state of excitement over the last few days, but I don't thin k we need to take them too seriously.
    There's one big event that moved the polling on health over the last three years and it was Dave breaking his word on an NHS reorganisation.


    watching the Beeb the NHS reorganisation isn't the lead story so the media must be getting needlessly excited too. Still the good news is Andy will be on TV at 8.30 it's a fifty-fifty whether he bursts in to tears saying it's not fair or punches Susanna Reed on air.

    As I say, the report allegedly claims problems have accelerated under the coalition, but we haven't seen it yet.
    And the only polling we have so far shows rises for Labour.

    In PB Toryworld we have lots of other things of course.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    @Alanbrooke

    is that your way of asking for a cat video ?
    A snuff one?

    National Post ‏@nationalpost
    ‘Bang! I accelerate’: Quebec mayor forced to apologize for saying how much he enjoys killing kittens with his car http://natpo.st/12C3jLv

    I'd like a medical update on how the operation to remove Jeremy Hunt from James Murdoch's rectum went.

    I'm amazed Jeremy found room what with half the Labour 1997 cabinet being there.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Is it that difficult to grasp that for Westminster few people consider it worth voting for UKIP but for the Euro elections, which have the lowest possible turnout and few people consider of much relevance, lots of people vote for UKIP. Simples!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,701
    Breaking news - The PM says the high mortality rate in 14 hospitals is Len McClusky;s fault as some UNITE members work in them!!
  • Are we perhaps seeing that UKIP perform excellently at by-election / local election / Euro election times - with all the attendant 'breakthrough' hype - but back in the 'real world' of GE polling they remain a protest vote / NOTA party?

    I'm sure they'll come first in the Euro elections. I don't think that will have huge GE implications.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    Breaking news - The PM says the high mortality rate in 14 hospitals is Len McClusky;s fault as some UNITE members work in them!!

    Ed will only agree with that by Friday.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Foxy.

    "And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage ."

    It seems you haven't yet understood what this site is about. The clue is in the title.

    Plenty of chat rooms about....
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    I do recall that when Yougov did the first Scotland-wide poll in early 2005, and found the Scottish LDs at about 20%, you dismissed it as a "voodoo" poll.

    And yet now a projection that implies the Scottish Lib Dems lose nearly all their seats on the mainland is furiously dismissed as voodoo despite polls and previous elections showing this to be possible. You just cant win with some posters.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    From the wildly different projections in the polls, I conclude that the pollsters are seriously confused by what will result from coalition politics and the rise of UKIP. I remember the Greens doing well in the Euros but taking two decades to get a single MP, and she is possibly going to be out in 2015.

    For all its idiosyncracies, Jacks ARSE seems surprisingly accurate. He should market it to the papers. Where there is muck there is brass.
    Patrick said:

    Are we perhaps seeing that UKIP perform excellently at by-election / local election / Euro election times - with all the attendant 'breakthrough' hype - but back in the 'real world' of GE polling they remain a protest vote / NOTA party?

    I'm sure they'll come first in the Euro elections. I don't think that will have huge GE implications.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Isn't it possible that the reason ICM is registering such low UKIP scores because of the old 'Shy Tory Syndrome' where respondents are embarrassed to tell someone face to face or on the phone that they support UKIP? Nothing else really explains such a wild outlier.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Plato said:

    This is rather fun - Lord Ashcroft has put Peter Bone's Alternative Queen's Speech to the test.

    Good for Lord Ashcroft! If only Mr (&Mrs) Bone could be persuaded by data. One thing did strike me - how small the "Tory effect" was - for such an allegedly toxic party it's virtually all MOE. I shall leave the last word to Lord Ashcroft:

    "Winning in 2015 will mean more than devising the most eye-catching ways of clamping down on criminals and foreigners. We certainly need to deliver on immigration, crime and welfare reform, but it is at least as important for the Tories to be a competent and united party of government that can be trusted on the economy and public services (which, incidentally, merited scarcely a mention in the Alternative Queen’s Speech). Rather than play fantasy politics we need to respond to the country's anxieties and aspirations, not least those of people who may never have voted Conservative before."
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Got your finger on the pulse there Roger..The NHS Is obviously not a political issue..no sir..absolutely nothing to do with politics..Don't you have a 30 second thriller script to study?>
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,754
    The lesson I'd draw from this is this.

    In 2009 all the pollsters overestimated UKIP but ICM didn't.

    Which is a good indicator for now.

    That's my spin and I'm sticking to it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I agree politics is a dirty business, but these scandals do show how poor parts of the NHS have become under both govts.

    I see neither party really looking for solutions.

    And I think there are a few more NHS scandals brewing that will see the light in time. I can see them being quite an issue at the next election.
    Roger said:

    Foxy.

    "And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage ."

    It seems you haven't yet understood what this site is about. The clue is in the title.

    Plenty of chat rooms about....

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Prof Jarman is taking no prisoners on R4

    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Prof Brian Jarman of Imperial Coll repeats criticism of Lab over NHS failings -"there was political pressure for information to be ignored"
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    @Doddy

    Your comprehension has deteriorated since your release from rehab. Who'd have thought it possible?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Plato said:

    I'm not really sure that making a comparison with the EU2009 elections is terribly helpful since its a different system and a long time ago.

    Mike is concentrating on whether ICM are accurate with their UKIP share, and so the comparison has some merit.

    It's plausible that ICM would have a problem with shy UKIP voters, but the important thing here is the change in the UKIP vote - why were ICM polling so many UKIP voters two months ago, but not now?

    My favoured explanation is that it is becoming harder for ICM to find a random sample, and so the weightings they have to apply to their sample are becoming larger - there were a lot of C1 and C2 voters missing this month, as well as people who would admit to voting for the Coalition parties in 2010 - notably more people in the ICM sample say they voted Labour in 2010 than Conservative. I'm not taking this as a sign that the ballot boxes were stuffed in 2010, but just that opinion polling is hard because people misremember, lie, or are not equally likely to be part of the poll sample.

    The effect of these weightings is to reduce the effective sample size, and so increase the margin of error, producing larger random swings from poll to poll.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013

    I agree politics is a dirty business, but these scandals do show how poor parts of the NHS have become under both govts.

    I see neither party really looking for solutions.

    And I think there are a few more NHS scandals brewing that will see the light in time. I can see them being quite an issue at the next election.


    Roger said:

    Foxy.

    "And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage ."

    It seems you haven't yet understood what this site is about. The clue is in the title.

    Plenty of chat rooms about....

    The problem seems to be a long-standing denial of serious issues and all those skeletons are falling out of cupboards en masse now.

    We've had the CQC, MidStaffs, the others like MidStaffs, all the regulators saying they were under political pressure to report Good News, gagging orders, Bristol heart, now LCP.

    A veritable slew of scandals that touch all areas of performance.

    Andy Burnham is still very touchy - he needs replacing. No contrition at all.

    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Andy Burnham rejects claims last Labour Govt ignored bad news on NHS - "I don't accept this attack on the integrity of the last Govt"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2013
    The Lord Ashcroft poll (field work 28-30 June) has VI:
    Con: 31
    Lab: 39
    LibD: 13
    UKIP: 11

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Alternative-Queens-Speech-poll-Full-tables.pdf
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    The sustained ICM difference (as opposed to any rogue swings in individual polls) is clearly down to their assumption that non-voters probably won't vote and half the uncertain voters will revert to what the voted before, assumptions I think not shared by other polls (except Populus, but they've now dropped them). The second assumption especially hurts UKIP, since very few people voted UKIP last time. As UKIP also seem to be attracting people who usually don't vote, the first assumption may be debatable for them too.

    So it's possible that although the gold standard for normal politics, their model isn't ideal when there's a fourth party butting in.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Comprehension is all..now where did I put those two movie contracts that arrrived this week...oh dear, now amnesia has set in..who am I..where am I..You know how it feels Rog.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @NickPalmer

    Nick, have you made the shortlist for Broxtowe PPC or do you need a hand from the Broxtowe Jacobite hordes ??
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    No, he didnt sound like he was about to cry.

    He put in a very combative performance.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    There is a "lick up, kick down" management style in the NHS. Where the bosses blame their juniors for failings and are only interested in meeting targets, to please their own bosses.

    This culture goes to the top, so I have a certain sympathy for Andy Burnham. I suspect that he was informed of the good news by his "yes men". He should have got out to see the coalface in a few of these backwaters to find out for himself. Instead he saw Potemkin villages.

    He is no worse (and little better) than most ministers in this. Remember Patricia Hewitts "best year ever" announcement, while the Stafford scandal was brewing and junior doctors training was being shredded?
    Plato said:

    I agree politics is a dirty business, but these scandals do show how poor parts of the NHS have become under both govts.

    I see neither party really looking for solutions.

    And I think there are a few more NHS scandals brewing that will see the light in time. I can see them being quite an issue at the next election.


    Roger said:

    Foxy.

    "And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage ."

    It seems you haven't yet understood what this site is about. The clue is in the title.

    Plenty of chat rooms about....

    The problem seems to be a long-standing denial of serious issues and all those skeletons are falling out of cupboards en masse now.

    We've had the CQC, MidStaffs, the others like MidStaffs, all the regulators saying they were under political pressure to report Good News, gagging orders, Bristol heart, now LCP.

    A veritable slew of scandals that touch all areas of performance.

    Andy Burnham is still very touchy - he needs replacing. No contrition at all.

    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Andy Burnham rejects claims last Labour Govt ignored bad news on NHS - "I don't accept this attack on the integrity of the last Govt"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2013
    One thing I was expecting when the coalition came to power was a relentless (to the point of being tiresome) attack on Labour's record. Labour, after all, spent 13 years badmouthing the Tories and never tired of it.

    But it didn't happen. Until now. Maybe they've wised up politically. Labour has a huge amount to be deeply ashamed of in its record in power. From energy policy, to 'no money left', to immigration, to Iraq, to placing lefties in all management positions across the public sector and its quangoes, to pretty much every area of government - they sucked. The NHS is no different. Labour badly, badly mismanaged and, as usual, all was subordinated to the needs of spin and targets. The UK's public sector is a sea of waste, incompetence, failure and lefty tribalism - and is ripe for reform and the therapeutic effects of 'sunlight' and transparency.

    I think the coalition has now developed a taste for exposing Labour's dire record. It hurts Labour and is like shooting fish in a barrel. We'll no doubt see ALOT more of it in the run up to 2015.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Off-topic:

    The legend that "A picture paints a thousand words" must now be proven wrong. These silly data-wrapper charts are neither informative nor of value (unlike pixels, bytes and band-width).

    Please, please, please can Junior ask his dad to desist! This site is not for art-skool wannabies....
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    tim said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    There are two problems here.

    1.ICM's adjustment may not be able to cope with UKIP -18% in May, 7% now?

    2.We don't have regional polling.
    This also impacts on predicting the Lib Dem share in Tory/LD vs Lab/LD marginals and the LD break in Con/Lab marginals in different parts of the copuntry

    1. It is worth noting that ICM's adjustments gave the BNP a very large share one or two month's ago, and the SNP likewise in the other month. ICM are simply having to adjust their sample too much.

    2. I would tend to think that polling by size of settlement is more important than by region. Tell me how people in settlements between 10,000 and 100,000 will vote, and I will tell you the election result, kind of thing.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited July 2013
    It is interesting to note that quite a few left leaning posters slag off anyone who might make any point about a poll that isn't good for the Tories, but they do just the same thing themselves when there is a poll that is bad for Labour.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Patrick said:

    One thing I was expecting when the coalition came to power was a relentless (to the point of being tiresome) attack on Labour's record. Labour, after all, spent 13 years badmouthing the Tories and never tired of it.

    But it didn't happen. Until now. Maybe they've wised up politically. Labour has a huge maount to be deeply ashamed of in its record in power. From energy policy, to 'no money left', to immigration, to Iraq, to placing lefties in all management positions across the public sector and its quangoes, to pretty much every area of government - they sucked. The NHS is no different. Labour badly, badly mismanaged and, as usual, all was subordinated to the needs of spin and targets. The UK's public sector is a sea of waste, incompetence, failure and lefty tribalism - and is ripe for reform and the therapeutic effects of 'sunlight' and transparency.

    I think the coalition has now developed a taste for exposing Labour's dire record. It hurts Labour and is like shooting fish in a barrel. We'll no doubt see ALOT more of it in the run up to 2015.

    The CCHQ Spads are just crap. I don't know whether this is Dave ungentlemanly conduct nonsense or they couldn't organise a piss up in a distillery but they are notably ineffective.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    What on earth has Burnham done to his face ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Brooke, are you suggesting Burnham has overdone the mascara?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
    I've always viewed Burham as an amiable lightweight who excelled in soft focus interviews. However he was completely unsuited for the battleground of SoS for Health and the chickens certainly came home to roost.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Brooke, are you suggesting Burnham has overdone the mascara?

    he's on TV now judge for yourself.

    I suspect it's a makeup problem. pasty skin burned red in heat and wrong colour of powder.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Neil said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    No, he didnt sound like he was about to cry.


    He wouldn't want his mascara to run..
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    The most interesting test of the pollsters is to see who 2 years out from the last election came closest to the result 2 years later.

    Otherwise there's no test other than the final one before the election which has any validity. The belief that ICM is the gold standard is based on 3 final day polls. Slightly unfair to the dozens that are taken earlier and which establish or otherwise the various pollsters reputations.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
    I've always viewed Burham as an amiable lightweight who excelled in soft focus interviews. However he was completely unsuited for the battleground of SoS for Health and the chickens certainly came home to roost.

    Any front bencher who thinks saying "it's not fair" in an interview doesn't make him sound like a six year old shouldn't be on TV.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    I'm just watching Mr Burnham again and wondering why he's all over the media. This is a PR nightmare for Labour and yet they're falling over themselves to get their defence in first. There isn't a single Tory or LD saying anything. That should have rung alarm bells in LHQ if nothing else.

    So its Burnham vs Prof Jarmann - its a loser to go up against an eminent expert and claim its all someone else's fault.

    Who advised Andy to do all these media slots clearly isn't his friend - the more he appears, the worse the impression is of a greasypole politician who is covering his arse and not really that bothered about the dead.

    For instance:

    Jill Hood @JillHood8
    Will never get used to my fathers death at Stafford Hospital as being described by Burnham just a few minutes ago on BBC as MORTALITY DATA
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Plato said:

    I'm just watching Mr Burnham again and wondering why he's all over the media. This is a PR nightmare for Labour and yet they're falling over themselves to get their defence in first. There isn't a single Tory or LD saying anything. That should have rung alarm bells in LHQ if nothing else.

    So its Burnham vs Prof Jarmann - its a loser to go up against an eminent expert and claim its all someone else's fault.

    Who advised Andy to do all these media slots clearly isn't his friend - the more he appears, the worse the impression is of a greasypole politician who is covering his arse and not really that bothered about the dead.

    Evil Ed watches Andy's career burn live on TV. Nyahahahaha
  • SchardsSchards Posts: 210
    Burnham's response to the allegation of 13,000 avoidable death on Labour's watch amounts to "it's not fait pointing out we're crap when they are crap too" followed by "pointing out 13,000 uneccessary death is unfair to NHS staff and bad for morale".

    Surely a career ending issue for Burnham here
  • @ Alanbrooke

    Lynton Crosby is not so weak though. And the LibDems can fight dirty with the best of them. The attacks on Labour's record WILL increase and they’ll get better and more painful for Labour to deal with.

    Dave may have too many chinless SPADs, but some of his ministers seem to be developing a taste for beating up their shadows (most notably Gove, Osborne and Hunt). And it is producing results.

    Actually Mike I think this would make for an interesting thread: Why haven’t the coalition attacked Labour and its record for 3 years? It’s a complete mystery to me. An open goal left unmolested.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited July 2013
    Off-topic II:

    Dickson's return to this site is in danger of being a fail. IIRC - prior to his first ban - he used to be funny and insightful: Currently he is not either.*

    Please Stuart, do us a favour: Post summinck positive.** I have to say that - like antifrank and neil - I am concerned about your problem with JackW (and I have had a few tats with the Baronet). The strength of this site is it's depth of knowledge (and comsumption of alcohol)! ***

    * I am not a Cheshire farmer. I like Cheshire cheese but....
    ** I find [self-] rejecting most posts before clicking the 'Post Comments' button helps my sanity. [Not sure of the effect on the rest of the m0ngs readers....]
    ** Well mine anyhoos...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    @Alanbrooke.

    A very poor interview by AB on Radio4. Blaming his civil servants sounded feeble. I think Jack's got him about right. He reminds me of Estelle Morris. Nice and with her heart in the right place but a bit too fragile for government
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    @JackW
    As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....

    Titters ....

    That's a clue ....
    So, we'll take that as a no: you did not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008.

    Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
    I've always viewed Burham as an amiable lightweight who excelled in soft focus interviews. However he was completely unsuited for the battleground of SoS for Health and the chickens certainly came home to roost.

    Any front bencher who thinks saying "it's not fair" in an interview doesn't make him sound like a six year old shouldn't be on TV.
    Well quite.

    However I'd have to say that both Cameron and Clegg have both dropped the ball over shocking appointments - namely two gentleman whose names are toxic on PB and may not be mentioned for fear of fire and brimstone !!

    Ouch ... that was a wee bit warm !!

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
    I've always viewed Burham as an amiable lightweight who excelled in soft focus interviews. However he was completely unsuited for the battleground of SoS for Health and the chickens certainly came home to roost.

    Any front bencher who thinks saying "it's not fair" in an interview doesn't make him sound like a six year old shouldn't be on TV.

    People on here were saying exactly the same on Sunday, yet Labours polling on health improved in the poll taken on Monday.

    Has it crossed your mind that the PB Tory demographic may be slightly out of touch with public opinion on this issue?
    Of course it has, has it crossed your mind people change their views and polls aren't immutable ?

    If we have a fortnight of the NHS is a mess it will be a political bun fight as to who gets the blame. Labour for it's inability to address serious problems on its watch or HMG since the problems can get blamed on the govt.

    In either case the NHS will probably go down a notch in the public's eye.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Roger said:

    @Alanbrooke.

    A very poor interview by AB on Radio4. Blaming his civil servants sounded feeble. I think Jack's got him about right. He reminds me of Estelle Morris. Nice and with her heart in the right place but a bit too fragile for government

    Yup, if men used tampons he'd be the man to sell them, but hard politics just doesn't look his game.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    No single pollster always gets it right. Equally, it's entirely possible that one pollster that is way out of line is proving more accurate in the unusual circumstances we are in, with two parties in government and with a new party of protest troubling the scorers.

    The problem is that pollster could just as easily be Survation as ICM. We simply won't know until the opinion polls are properly tested against the actual general election.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    The best Andy Burnham can hope for is to be accused of being asleep at the wheel and being naive - the Potemkin Villages that others have alluded to.

    I think @Roger is right here - he's the wrong man for a job at DoH - AJ was another, when I was there he was house-trained within weeks and kept on a crowd-pleasing treadmill by his Office.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Patrick said:

    Actually Mike I think this would make for an interesting thread: Why haven’t the coalition attacked Labour and its record for 3 years? It’s a complete mystery to me. An open goal left unmolested.

    It was noticeable before the last election that the Tories were pulling their punches. This was clearly deliberate. I suspect the reason for it was that they were trying to throw off the 'nasty party' image and not put off centre-ground voters sympathetic to Labour.

    I actually think this is a mistake, and misunderstands how voters react. It makes it look as though you accept the other side's attacks on you. Of course you need to be measured and reasonable in your own attacks, but also you need to keep them simple and pithy. and keep repeating the same tedious lines, if you are to get through to the average voter who's not deconstructing every line. Labour are past masters at it - in fact, it's the only thing they are masters of.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Andy sounds like he's about to cry on Today.

    Why oh why did Ed re-appoint Burnham to Shadow Health. Mind you Ed can pick em -Phil Woolas !!

    Both car crashes in waiting.

    I really can't see why he did either of these - Woolas was poison before the event - and Burnham after. Ed's had several reshuffles and could have stopped this ages ago.

    I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.

    Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
    I've always viewed Burham as an amiable lightweight who excelled in soft focus interviews. However he was completely unsuited for the battleground of SoS for Health and the chickens certainly came home to roost.

    Any front bencher who thinks saying "it's not fair" in an interview doesn't make him sound like a six year old shouldn't be on TV.
    Well quite.

    However I'd have to say that both Cameron and Clegg have both dropped the ball over shocking appointments - namely two gentleman whose names are toxic on PB and may not be mentioned for fear of fire and brimstone !!

    Ouch ... that was a wee bit warm !!

    HMG still are making mistakes though.

    Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.

    Couldn't we just get Osborne to defect to Labour and give the blues a chance ? The reverse spin on PB would be worth the ticket, alone :-)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    @FluffyThoughts

    "Dickson's return to this site is in danger of being a fail. IIRC - prior to his first ban - he used to be funny and insightful: Currently he is not either.*

    From the most self opinionated moron this site has ever seen this is way beyond parody. That Mike still lets you post on here is one of the site's great mysteries. You've never written a single interesting post which I think is unique

    tumbleweed,,,,,,>>>
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Personally I think it's long overdue


    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Andy Burnham accuses Tories of "talking down the NHS" over claims he ignored warnings of hospital failures.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    The sustained ICM difference (as opposed to any rogue swings in individual polls) is clearly down to their assumption that non-voters probably won't vote and half the uncertain voters will revert to what the voted before, assumptions I think not shared by other polls (except Populus, but they've now dropped them). The second assumption especially hurts UKIP, since very few people voted UKIP last time. As UKIP also seem to be attracting people who usually don't vote, the first assumption may be debatable for them too.

    So it's possible that although the gold standard for normal politics, their model isn't ideal when there's a fourth party butting in.

    This is simply not true , the adjustments that ICM make have only a marginal difference to the final VI figures . The major cause of the big change in UKIP figures in the last 3 months is simply the number of voters who said they would vote UKIP ..
    May 106 June 70 July 44

    As I have previously posted , the adjustments Yougov and Populus make for Party ID do have an impact on the final UKIP VI figure compared to the other online pollsters
    The ICM telephone poll figures ARE different to the other pollsters but the difference is only marginally affected by their methodology , the major difference is that the people responding are giving different responses ..

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The lady on BBC Breakfast ate Burnham like a croissant. Who is she? Very impressive - polite but very firm.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Miss Plato, Brown used to accuse the blues of talking down the economy when they pointed out he'd given us the worst recession in history. It's the equivalent of:

    "Stop talking down my operation!"

    "But... you killed the patient."

    "Your negative attitude is bad for morale."
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The public believes what both main parties say about each other.

    So, if Labour are saying that the NHS is not safe in the Conservatives' hands and the Conservatives are saying that the number of avoidable deaths is in some way Andy Burnham's fault, the public will believe that the Conservatives are spoiling to privatise the NHS and that Andy Burnham is incompetent. That's bad news for Andy Burnham, but not particularly bad news for the Labour party.

    In other words, instead of just gunning for Andy Burnham, tempting though it no doubt is for the Conservatives, they should be attacking Labour directly.

    If, on the other hand, you look at the rival messages on the economy, the Conservatives come out rather better off.
  • Sounds like tim, Richard N and others are all of one mind - Dave can and should go on the attack.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541



    If we have a fortnight of the NHS is a mess it will be a political bun fight as to who gets the blame. Labour for it's inability to address serious problems on its watch or HMG since the problems can get blamed on the govt.

    In either case the NHS will probably go down a notch in the public's eye.

    The main effect will just be to raise the salience of the NHS, which is unwise for the Government unless they really do want to replace it. An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention. One can debate whether it should or not - the old argument about Ministers being theoretically responsible for everything bad that happens - but PB is about trends and polls and I think the Conservatives are on a loser with this one.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    HMG still are making mistakes though.

    Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.

    There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.

    As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I have to admit, that after reading all of the posts on here re the NHS I must accept the fact that the reported needless 13,000 deaths in the NHS from 2005-2010 are completely the fault of the Cons and The Lib Dems.. how could it be otherwise..Those brave Labour Ministers were fighting overwhelming shortfalls from the Thatcher era, they had no chance, poor things.A good cry often helps.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    To an extent I have some sympathy for Burnham - he was left holding the parcel when the music stopped - and he didn't have the luxury of "my predecessors were crap" that the coalition has enjoyed. Perhaps Ed left him in place on purpose so he could become the (pretty) face of "Labour's failure on the NHS" and act as a firewall between the failings and the party - to be taken out and shot at an appropriate juncture - it's far from clear he was the weakest SoS - he inherited a rotting system and it appears the worst he can be accused of is lack of curiosity and backbone, when his officials argued to do things "discretely" - in the interests of the NHS - if not its patients. Rough old game, politics.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    My problem with Burnham and Labour is the focus on staff not patients.


    We all know why.
This discussion has been closed.