There's something slightly odd about the mail front page/attack piece.
I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because it's a comment piece - "Today the daily mail accuses...." - like it's inviting readers to agree with it. I'm not sure it achieves its objective as effectively as it could have done.
Well there's a switch. Isn't that Thangam Debbonaire's seat? They parted on bad terms, she'd probably more likely to be anti-corbyn than the Green.
Asking Tories for try to return FIVE LD MPs.It would be pretty funny if those five did indeed get elected thanks to Mail voters - would probably on its own ensure the LDs are well over 10 seats! They don't want those Tory tacticals to abandon Clegg now.
All their front pages are like that. This is only unusual in attributing the source of the accusation to the Daily Mail. Usually the style would be to leave everything in the passive voice.
A SurveyMonkey poll for the Sun has appeared on Wikipedia with Con 42% Lab 38%.
And the YouGov models have vanished.
Good, they aren't VI figures from a poll.
You're being bit naive, I'm afraid. No one is serving you up with raw polling figures. They are all models - giving you figures that are sliced, diced, pureed and cooked in every way you can imagine. The YouGov model gives you projected percentages just like the others, and also numbers of seats. We'll know who's closest to the truth some time on Friday.
So far I've not seen any a priori reason to suppose the big YouGov model is likely to be any better or worse than the other models.
It's fundamentally a different approach, more of a projection of the national share from their model rather than an opinion poll.
I don't know about fundamentally different. More complicated, perhaps.
But my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
A SurveyMonkey poll for the Sun has appeared on Wikipedia with Con 42% Lab 38%.
And the YouGov models have vanished.
Good, they aren't VI figures from a poll.
You're being bit naive, I'm afraid. No one is serving you up with raw polling figures. They are all models - giving you figures that are sliced, diced, pureed and cooked in every way you can imagine. The YouGov model gives you projected percentages just like the others, and also numbers of seats. We'll know who's closest to the truth some time on Friday.
So far I've not seen any a priori reason to suppose the big YouGov model is likely to be any better or worse than the other models.
It's fundamentally a different approach, more of a projection of the national share from their model rather than an opinion poll.
I don't know about fundamentally different. More complicated, perhaps.
But my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I thought they were predicting the vote share in each seat and from that extrapolating the national shares?
A SurveyMonkey poll for the Sun has appeared on Wikipedia with Con 42% Lab 38%.
And the YouGov models have vanished.
Good, they aren't VI figures from a poll.
You're being bit naive, I'm afraid. No one is serving you up with raw polling figures. They are all models - giving you figures that are sliced, diced, pureed and cooked in every way you can imagine. The YouGov model gives you projected percentages just like the others, and also numbers of seats. We'll know who's closest to the truth some time on Friday.
So far I've not seen any a priori reason to suppose the big YouGov model is likely to be any better or worse than the other models.
It's fundamentally a different approach, more of a projection of the national share from their model rather than an opinion poll.
I don't know about fundamentally different. More complicated, perhaps.
But my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I thought they were predicting the vote share in each seat and from that extrapolating the national shares?
I think they (assuming you mean YouGov) are. That's why I say it's a more complicated model, because other pollsters aren't making seat-by-seat projections. But in projecting national vote shares from their raw data, of course they are still relying on models.
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter is a shit show. They have no idea about their users, let alone analytics / buildin up a picture of their users from other sources.
Where as Facebook for years have bought up every bit of 3rd party data on a user they could get.
An advertiser the service each can provide couldn't be more different.
Let us be clear. We have no doubt that Mr Corbyn’s expressions of horror over the atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge, and his sympathy for the victims and their families, were sincere.
But the ineluctable truth is that the Labour leader and his closest associates have spent their careers cosying up to those who hate our country, while pouring scorn on the police and security services and opposing anti-terror legislation over and over and over again
Ineluctable? This paper is classier than i realised.
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail are written with skill. I mean the serious articles. Not the vicar gets his leg over or actress from a TV show her tits at a nightclub stuff. Julius Streicher's despicable Der Sturmer rag was composed with skill too.
"Ineluctable" is over-writing. Purpled prose....
Fail.
'Inescapable' would have done just as well, minus the showing off....
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter have no idea who their users are. Their business plan was to get lots of users and get bought out, but they turned down every offer in favour of an IPO - now they're worth Jack...
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter is a way to find out news and argue about it
Facebook is a way to keep in touch with your friends, family, exes and school pals.
Imagine the data capture of your living room whilst you watch the news. Then imagine the data capture of most of the rest of your house through your entire waking hours. That is how I see the difference.
There's something slightly odd about the mail front page/attack piece.
I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because it's a comment piece - "Today the daily mail accuses...." - like it's inviting readers to agree with it. I'm not sure it achieves its objective as effectively as it could have done.
hmm. Not sure.
Not in the great Zola-ist tradition of 'J'ACCUSE' ?
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter is a way to find out news and argue about it
Facebook is a way to keep in touch with your friends, family, exes and school pals.
Imagine the data capture of your living room whilst you watch the news. Then imagine the data capture of most of the rest of your house through your entire waking hours. That is how I see the difference.
It is way more than that. Facebook collates all possible data on user from every possible source (not just what you volunteer them). They spend 100s millions buying all this from other sources. They then have built advanced systems to match groups of users, learn patterns etc.
Let us be clear. We have no doubt that Mr Corbyn’s expressions of horror over the atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge, and his sympathy for the victims and their families, were sincere.
But the ineluctable truth is that the Labour leader and his closest associates have spent their careers cosying up to those who hate our country, while pouring scorn on the police and security services and opposing anti-terror legislation over and over and over again
Ineluctable? This paper is classier than i realised.
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail are written with skill. I mean the serious articles. Not the vicar gets his leg over or actress from a TV show her tits at a nightclub stuff. Julius Streicher's despicable Der Sturmer rag was composed with skill too.
"Ineluctable" is over-writing. Purpled prose....
Fail.
'Inescapable' would have done just as well, minus the showing off....
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter is a way to find out news and argue about it
Facebook is a way to keep in touch with your friends, family, exes and school pals.
Imagine the data capture of your living room whilst you watch the news. Then imagine the data capture of most of the rest of your house through your entire waking hours. That is how I see the difference.
It is way more than that. Facebook collates all possible data on user from every possible source. They spend 100s millions doing so. They then have built advanced systems to match groups of users, learn patterns etc.
Let us be clear. We have no doubt that Mr Corbyn’s expressions of horror over the atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge, and his sympathy for the victims and their families, were sincere.
But the ineluctable truth is that the Labour leader and his closest associates have spent their careers cosying up to those who hate our country, while pouring scorn on the police and security services and opposing anti-terror legislation over and over and over again
Ineluctable? This paper is classier than i realised.
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail are written with skill. I mean the serious articles. Not the vicar gets his leg over or actress from a TV show her tits at a nightclub stuff. Julius Streicher's despicable Der Sturmer rag was composed with skill too.
"Ineluctable" is over-writing. Purpled prose....
Fail.
'Inescapable' would have done just as well, minus the showing off....
No it wouldn't, because ineluctable is closer to unelectable. Read it again. See?
Let us be clear. We have no doubt that Mr Corbyn’s expressions of horror over the atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge, and his sympathy for the victims and their families, were sincere.
But the ineluctable truth is that the Labour leader and his closest associates have spent their careers cosying up to those who hate our country, while pouring scorn on the police and security services and opposing anti-terror legislation over and over and over again
Ineluctable? This paper is classier than i realised.
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail are written with skill. I mean the serious articles. Not the vicar gets his leg over or actress from a TV show her tits at a nightclub stuff. Julius Streicher's despicable Der Sturmer rag was composed with skill too.
"Ineluctable" is over-writing. Purpled prose....
Fail.
'Inescapable' would have done just as well, minus the showing off....
No it wouldn't, because ineluctable is closer to unelectable. Read it again. See?
I think both you & the Mail are being too 'clever'......
Bristol West: Plenty of green posters up in the posh bits, and the Greens have thrown a lot at supporting the Green PPC Molly Scott Cato (bumped into Lucas a couple of times in town, although one of them might have been a mayoral trip). But looks to be a safe Lab hold for the splendidly-named Thangam Debonnaire; strong candidate, with incumbency, a lot of sympathy for her cancer battle, if you are going to vote Green you may as well vote Corbyn and plant a tree to wind all those Evil Tories up, and LD (failed mayoral candidate seems a bit soiled as PPC) and CON (not sure they are even trying - only one leaflet) haven't mounted a real challenge.
Happy to be on LAB at 2.5, now 1.33 which seems FV.
Also heartening to see that Broom was out sweeping in the cricket.
There's something slightly odd about the mail front page/attack piece.
I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because it's a comment piece - "Today the daily mail accuses...." - like it's inviting readers to agree with it. I'm not sure it achieves its objective as effectively as it could have done.
hmm. Not sure.
I suspect they've consulted their libel lawyers. Perhaps merely voicing your opinion that they're all terrorists is less legally problematic than declaring it as a fact.
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter is a way to find out news and argue about it
Facebook is a way to keep in touch with your friends, family, exes and school pals.
Imagine the data capture of your living room whilst you watch the news. Then imagine the data capture of most of the rest of your house through your entire waking hours. That is how I see the difference.
It is way more than that. Facebook collates all possible data on user from every possible source. They spend 100s millions doing so. They then have built advanced systems to match groups of users, learn patterns etc.
Sinister.
And of course when you log on they track everything you do and then use background + current activity to decide what to push you.
Let us be clear. We have no doubt that Mr Corbyn’s expressions of horror over the atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge, and his sympathy for the victims and their families, were sincere.
But the ineluctable truth is that the Labour leader and his closest associates have spent their careers cosying up to those who hate our country, while pouring scorn on the police and security services and opposing anti-terror legislation over and over and over again
Ineluctable? This paper is classier than i realised.
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail are written with skill. I mean the serious articles. Not the vicar gets his leg over or actress from a TV show her tits at a nightclub stuff. Julius Streicher's despicable Der Sturmer rag was composed with skill too.
"Ineluctable" is over-writing. Purpled prose....
Fail.
'Inescapable' would have done just as well, minus the showing off....
Many readers of Daily Mail editorials enjoy the sensation of being washed over by sections of the prose, basking in the feeling that they're a cut above the scum as they read words that rarely or never make it into the redtops. They're poorly educated and they're snobs too. It's not as if they're trying to understand what's written in order to weigh, criticise, learn, or form their own opinion. The meaning of "ineluctable" is clear from the context here anyway. Personally I hate "the truth is", let alone "the ineluctable truth is" - I think "just say what you're bloody trying to say" - but the purple and highly emphatic writing here works for the intended audience.
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter have no idea who their users are. Their business plan was to get lots of users and get bought out, but they turned down every offer in favour of an IPO - now they're worth Jack...
I'm surprised at that, when they're used as what amounts to a press agency by most of the world's governments.
Surprised to see Ynys Mon Tories told to vote for PC - some models think the Tories could snatch it.
If Labour hold Ynys Mon it's a great win for me - I'm hoping confusion about who is the main challenger to Labour prevents a tactical voting opposition. Labour's poll recovery generally should see them through here anyway though.
Twitter is a shit show. They have no idea about their users, let alone analytics / buildin up a picture of their users from other sources.
Where as Facebook for years have bought up every bit of 3rd party data on a user they could get.
An advertiser the service each can provide couldn't be more different.
I detest social media - never used Twitter (and wish the media weren't so reliant on it for quotes* and even making up stories out of nothing) and been years since I deleted my Facebook. Never looked into LinkedIn at all, even though in at least one of my more niche lines of work I probably ought to, on paper.
However, in my most mass-market line of work, I am losing clients at an alarming rate to a couple of competitors who have built their model around Facebook (advertising, tasters, quizzes, seminars, and so on). They are seriously effective. I have literally no idea how to compete with them - not a lot of point entering their territory, they understand it far better than I do and seem to be refining their model constantly.
I had been aware for years of competitors using Twitter heavily to promote themselves, but they mostly seem to have been tweeting into the void, perhaps hoping links in their tweets would drive traffic to their sites, but didn't seem to have anything much cleverer than that going on - no effective way to embed product samples etc and no interactions, even with their customers. (Logical enough - why would you engage with someone on Twitter once you've established your personal line of communication to them?) Big source of amusement to see old tweets with rivals literally begging for a retweet to no avail. Whereas the ones who've mastered FB must be absolutely killing it - raking it in.
* when someone famous/important dies, I reckon it's actively disrespectful and undignified to put in ungrammatical generic-sadness-expressing tweets from some Joe Public nobody who didn't even know the deceased personally. That really, really galls me.
In some seats they are asking labour voters to vote Tory, but those seats will have strong ukip third places aswell. Why sepreate those two sets of seats out?
Well that doesn't exactly leave a lot to the imagination does it??
But why have they been keeping it a secret for so long?
Unfortunately Peter, when you take away the big flashing lights and plain to the point talk of the Mail and Sun, Corbyn does not have a healthy set of measurements at all. It isn't really interpretation either. Bearing in mind the cops in this part of the world weren't his main report channel, that was a mainland operation, his name came up plenty as as a useful tool and legitimiser.
Some of it you just think 'he's just a bit of less likeable Wolfie Smith, who loves hanging out with every dodgepot 'freedom' movement but its the level of involvement and the almost peerless desire to back them down nearly every channel he has the will to use that marks him out.
It isn't a left or right issue, there is a core corruption of good sense and honestly, a wee bit of morality. At that point, whether he wants 5 year plans for tractor production as part of his manifesto just don't matter.
His private views haven't changed, he is locked into it.
I was taking the piss, as I'm sure you appreciate.
But we'll have a proper grown-up discussion about this after the election.
Great spreadsheet! Will you be updating it on the night?
That's the plan. The only problem is I usually miss a lot of the excitement of election night because I'm staring at the screen colouring in results as they come in. It's surprisingly time-consuming. You'd think it would just take a second or two but it seems to take longer for some reason.
The day after the attack I suggested there was a background link between one of their number and the Manchester circle.
And it is, sadly, Libya again. Redouane fought in Libya but what is currently in investigation is whether he crossed through some of the same trainers and influencers as young Mr Abedi the Manchester bomber.
I suspect within a week you'll find out that somewhere along the line people involved with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups link the two.
Addendum: Ipsos-MORI have historical estimates going back to 1992, including estimated differential turnout among newspapers! In 1997, 29% of Mail readers voted Labour. If Labour want to win an election, they would benefit from not turning their noses up at such support!
We are now in the age of the internet, website just as important. It is why the times doesn't have anywhere near the impact. I bet 95% of the population have no idea about the MI5 file on jezza story. If that was front and centre of the mail website gets a massive amount more views.
Yes, file that mostly as "for historical interest". I think we need a new measure of which streams of information circulation people are expose to these days. You could have two relatively "high-information" voters both exposed to a variety of news-sources via following links that appear on their facebook feeds... yet be looking at completely different stuff.
It is why Facebook is such a valuable company, not because of the size of the userbase but because they know this stuff.
And yet Twitter don't seem to, which I find curious.
Twitter have no idea who their users are. Their business plan was to get lots of users and get bought out, but they turned down every offer in favour of an IPO - now they're worth Jack...
I'm surprised at that, when they're used as what amounts to a press agency by most of the world's governments.
The running joke is that, 20 years from now politics classes will talk about David Cameron's quote about, and Donald Trump's use of Twitter - but the students will have to have the lecturer explain what exactly this Twitter thing was.
Well that doesn't exactly leave a lot to the imagination does it??
But why have they been keeping it a secret for so long?
Unfortunately Peter, when you take away the big flashing lights and plain to the point talk of the Mail and Sun, Corbyn does not have a healthy set of measurements at all. It isn't really interpretation either. Bearing in mind the cops in this part of the world weren't his main report channel, that was a mainland operation, his name came up plenty as as a useful tool and legitimiser.
Some of it you just think 'he's just a bit of less likeable Wolfie Smith, who loves hanging out with every dodgepot 'freedom' movement but its the level of involvement and the almost peerless desire to back them down nearly every channel he has the will to use that marks him out.
It isn't a left or right issue, there is a core corruption of good sense and honestly, a wee bit of morality. At that point, whether he wants 5 year plans for tractor production as part of his manifesto just don't matter.
His private views haven't changed, he is locked into it.
I was taking the piss, as I'm sure you appreciate.
But we'll have a proper grown-up discussion about this after the election.
I've had a total sense of humour failure over the guy a bit like I have over Trump.
...my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I think you're confusing a "poll" and a "model"
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
Great spreadsheet! Will you be updating it on the night?
That's the plan. The only problem is I usually miss a lot of the excitement of election night because I'm staring at the screen colouring in results as they come in. It's surprisingly time-consuming. You'd think it would just take a second or two but it seems to take longer for some reason.
Well if you use felt pens on the television screen, I'm not surprised...
Well that doesn't exactly leave a lot to the imagination does it??
But why have they been keeping it a secret for so long?
Unfortunately Peter, when you take away the big flashing lights and plain to the point talk of the Mail and Sun, Corbyn does not have a healthy set of measurements at all. It isn't really interpretation either. Bearing in mind the cops in this part of the world weren't his main report channel, that was a mainland operation, his name came up plenty as as a useful tool and legitimiser.
Some of it you just think 'he's just a bit of less likeable Wolfie Smith, who loves hanging out with every dodgepot 'freedom' movement but its the level of involvement and the almost peerless desire to back them down nearly every channel he has the will to use that marks him out.
It isn't a left or right issue, there is a core corruption of good sense and honestly, a wee bit of morality. At that point, whether he wants 5 year plans for tractor production as part of his manifesto just don't matter.
His private views haven't changed, he is locked into it.
I was taking the piss, as I'm sure you appreciate.
But we'll have a proper grown-up discussion about this after the election.
I've had a total sense of humour failure over the guy a bit like I have over Trump.
...my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I think you're confusing a "poll" and a "model"
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
It's all modelling. Even just deciding what categories to weight is modelling.
...my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I think you're confusing a "poll" and a "model"
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
It's all modelling. Even just deciding what categories to weight is modelling.
That's drawing the definition of "modelling" out so widely as to render it worthless. "Deciding what categories to weight" is not "modelling": it's "deciding".
...my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I think you're confusing a "poll" and a "model"
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
It's all modelling. Even just deciding what categories to weight is modelling.
That's drawing the definition of "modelling" out so widely as to render it worthless. "Deciding what categories to weight" is not "modelling": it's "deciding".
If for some semantic reason you don't want to call it modelling, don't. But it's part of the process you have to go through to convert your raw polling data into a projection of what will happen, so it amounts to the same thing.
The news item that was allegedly influenced or inserted by Russian intelligence supposedly said that the emir of Qatar wanted to be friends with Israel and Iran (sic) and that he thought Trump might not last long as US president. And the Saudi dictatorship decided to break relations for that? So it wasn't because of Qatar's alleged "support for jihadist terror" then? And of course Trump's lending of his brand name (the "Presidential" one) to the huge US-Saudi weapons deal, which he oiled by participating in a fucking sword dance, didn't have anything to do with it?
So perhaps Trinity College, Cambridge, will get its talons into the Shard?
The Saudi princes fund Jihadist terror around the world, they smash up Yemen, they love Trump to bits, and now it looks as though they want to break their Salafist competitors in Qatar. They are expanding their influence and the US and Israel are supporting them. Events are pointing towards a Saudi attack on Iran.
A lot of comments on Scotland, mostly based on information in English media, so for once, a little background. The North East has been Tory for many a long year, until Salmond came along with his independence tune. The "fairmers" and the fisherfolk were only too happy to dance to his music.
Firstly the farmers are not happy nowadays, as the SNP have screwed up the payment of the EU subsidies and they haven't been paid out correctly, if at all, for the past 2 years. You really couldn't make this up - the SNP government then organised loans to be made available to the farmers to cover them until the subsidies could be paid out, at the full commercial bank rate. Now as the farmers don't have the money they have budgeted in, they can't buy stock, equipment or new tractors, which means that all the suppliers are suffering as well - and the chain continues down the line.
The fisherfolk, East, North East, Islands and West Coast are not happy as no one has talked to them about the EU fishing restrictions and quotas. They want out of the EU while Sturgeon witters on about staying in.
As there is very little industry apart from farming and fishing in the North East, (Oil: only a few executives and managers live locally, the riggers and crews live mostly south of the border) there is now tremendous pressure on the SNP core vote. As an aside, the North East was the main treasure chest of the SNP, and according to reports, there have been no large donations to the SNP coffers this year.
Dundee, one of the SNP MP's has been cleared of fraudulently mis-representing testimonials on his financial services website, plus, SNP MP's have a reputation for being generous to themselves with their expense accounts. Certainly didn't do as well as they expected in the recent Council Elections.
Glasgow, broken promises about retaining hospitals, wards and A&E's have annoyed many. Black was shouted down by a crowd when she tried to give a speech outside, I believe, her constituency office. Again, a reputation of flying into Glasgow airport on a Friday evening, partying till Sunday night with her friends and back on the plane on Monday morning to Westminster.
And McGarry. From a family very close to the leadership. With a personal problem with SNP charities and fund raisers, money going through her personal PayPal account and not reaching the relevant bank accounts. But there are several other more serious charges outstanding against her, apart from marrying a Tory councillor.
These are just a few of the problems that the SNP leadership have boxed themselves in to. The symptoms of the SNP malaise can be found in most parts of Scotland. Will it show on Thursday, don't know, but Dugdale is now suddenly full of beans, while Sturgeon is not her usual bouncy self.
Oh, and for all those Ruthie fanciers, she is not popular in SCON. She was going to lose her constituency support in Glasgow before she decided to move to Edinburgh, and from gossip, she is seemingly not popular here, either, in the local party. Too much blatant ambition, and too little humility.
...my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
I think you're confusing a "poll" and a "model"
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
It's all modelling. Even just deciding what categories to weight is modelling.
That's drawing the definition of "modelling" out so widely as to render it worthless. "Deciding what categories to weight" is not "modelling": it's "deciding".
If for some semantic reason you don't want to call it modelling, don't. But it's part of the process you have to go through to convert your raw polling data into a projection of what will happen, so it amounts to the same thing.
My point was that for many polls, modelling is not involved at any point at all. "Polling" and "modelling" are not synonyms.
A lot of comments on Scotland, mostly based on information in English media, so for once, a little background. The North East has been Tory for many a long year, until Salmond came along with his independence tune. The "fairmers" and the fisherfolk were only too happy to dance to his music.
Firstly the farmers are not happy nowadays, as the SNP have screwed up the payment of the EU subsidies and they haven't been paid out correctly, if at all, for the past 2 years. You really couldn't make this up - the SNP government then organised loans to be made available to the farmers to cover them until the subsidies could be paid out, at the full commercial bank rate. Now as the farmers don't have the money they have budgeted in, they can't buy stock, equipment or new tractors, which means that all the suppliers are suffering as well - and the chain continues down the line.
The fisherfolk, East, North East, Islands and West Coast are not happy as no one has talked to them about the EU fishing restrictions and quotas. They want out of the EU while Sturgeon witters on about staying in.
As there is very little industry apart from farming and fishing in the North East, (Oil: only a few executives and managers live locally, the riggers and crews live mostly south of the border) there is now tremendous pressure on the SNP core vote. As an aside, the North East was the main treasure chest of the SNP, and according to reports, there have been no large donations to the SNP coffers this year.
Dundee, one of the SNP MP's has been cleared of fraudulently mis-representing testimonials on his financial services website, plus, SNP MP's have a reputation for being generous to themselves with their expense accounts. Certainly didn't do as well as they expected in the recent Council Elections.
Glasgow, broken promises about retaining hospitals, wards and A&E's have annoyed many. Black was shouted down by a crowd when she tried to give a speech outside, I believe, her constituency office. Again, a reputation of flying into Glasgow airport on a Friday evening, partying till Sunday night with her friends and back on the plane on Monday morning to Westminster.
And McGarry. From a family very close to the leadership. With a personal problem with SNP charities and fund raisers, money going through her personal PayPal account and not reaching the relevant bank accounts. But there are several other more serious charges outstanding against her, apart from marrying a Tory councillor.
These are just a few of the problems that the SNP leadership have boxed themselves in to. The symptoms of the SNP malaise can be found in most parts of Scotland. Will it show on Thursday, don't know, but Dugdale is now suddenly full of beans, while Sturgeon is not her usual bouncy self.
Thanks for the report. I guess this means East Lothian, Edinburgh North and Paisley South are all in play for Labour.
The Daily Mail boasts of how a pseudonymous email operative pretended to be Seumas Milne and tricked Diane Abbott to send him details of her illness.
The filthy rag quotes the filthy man as follows:
"My mate challenged me and said I couldn't prank her. There was no money on the bet, I just thought I'd give it a go (...) Deciding to be Seumas was literally a spur of the moment thing I decided as I was having a cup of tea this morning (...) I (...) feel that anyone with responsibility for money/health/safety should not be allowed a personal email address. It's leaving us all open to an attack (...) I've absolutely nothing against her, I think her grasp on figures is a little ropey, but I don't judge her as a person. She has a kind-looking face."
Yeah, yeah, mate, you got up this morning, and your mate this that and the other, and you've nothing against your victim; you just decided to try to trick a leading Labour politician out of details of the medication she was on, on the eve of an election.
As far as I am concerned, Diane Abbott is a hero for how she has kept on giving interviews as long as she could, despite her illness, and despite the concentrated Tory attacks on her, which have often involved the blowing of racist dogwhistles, in order to do her utmost to remove the Nasty party from office.
Both the Daily Mail and the Sun will look like utter hypocrites in 2022 - assuming much of the world hasn't been nuked by then - if they dare so much as utter a peep of complaint in the event that anti-Tory hackers take down their websites and their other scummy operations so that they can't publish this kind of propaganda.
The Daily Mail boasts of how a pseudonymous email operative pretended to be Seumas Milne and tricked Diane Abbott to send him details of her illness.
An illness which the PM also suffers from, has been candid and open about (unlike Ms Abbott) and as a result has had questions raised about 'is she up to the job' 'she looks ill' and so forth.
DIABETIC Mrs May laughed off Labour smears that she was too “unwell” to be PM — and insisted there were “no limits” to her abilities.
She said her general health was good and her daily insulin injections had never got in the way of doing her job.
After Mrs May, who has Type 1 diabetes, skipped a live TV debate and radio appearance, Corbyn ally Paul Mason told the BBC: “We’re actually entitled to ask, is she unwell?”
Hmmm isn't that where YouGov are predicting an Independent GAIN?......
That cannot be anything more than a guess on their part.
I don't undrstand how they are predicting that? Their polls must be *very* skewed to be predicting that, i.e. only the very politically engaged are doing thier polls.
Comments
I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because it's a comment piece - "Today the daily mail accuses...." - like it's inviting readers to agree with it. I'm not sure it achieves its objective as effectively as it could have done.
hmm. Not sure.
Asking Tories for try to return FIVE LD MPs.It would be pretty funny if those five did indeed get elected thanks to Mail voters - would probably on its own ensure the LDs are well over 10 seats! They don't want those Tory tacticals to abandon Clegg now.
But my point is that all the polls are projecting a result from the raw data on the basis of a model of some kind.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/06/lord-ashcroft-my-election-models-probabilities-suggest-a-potential-conservative-majority-of-64.html
Australian government confirms that a second Australian national died in the London attack.
Where as Facebook for years have bought up every bit of 3rd party data on a user they could get.
An advertiser the service each can provide couldn't be more different.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/exclusive-special-branch-monitored-jeremy-corbyn-20-years-amid/
In other news, Telegraph speculates about the religious affiliation of the Pontiff and defecation habits of ursine mammals in arborous areas.
Facebook is a way to keep in touch with your friends, family, exes and school pals.
Imagine the data capture of your living room whilst you watch the news. Then imagine the data capture of most of the rest of your house through your entire waking hours. That is how I see the difference.
Not in the great Zola-ist tradition of 'J'ACCUSE' ?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/872203094037336064/photo/1
The Express is on the fence:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/872201849289527298
Your pull out and keep guide to the Daily Mail
Happy to be on LAB at 2.5, now 1.33 which seems FV.
Also heartening to see that Broom was out sweeping in the cricket.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAUtJZzfnfYS_uarczPdRBJ1XgVNGfvyBU6Adz5YDGc/edit#gid=0
Fingers crossed that will make us all some money on Thursday night! Thanks as ever for doing these.
However, in my most mass-market line of work, I am losing clients at an alarming rate to a couple of competitors who have built their model around Facebook (advertising, tasters, quizzes, seminars, and so on). They are seriously effective. I have literally no idea how to compete with them - not a lot of point entering their territory, they understand it far better than I do and seem to be refining their model constantly.
I had been aware for years of competitors using Twitter heavily to promote themselves, but they mostly seem to have been tweeting into the void, perhaps hoping links in their tweets would drive traffic to their sites, but didn't seem to have anything much cleverer than that going on - no effective way to embed product samples etc and no interactions, even with their customers. (Logical enough - why would you engage with someone on Twitter once you've established your personal line of communication to them?) Big source of amusement to see old tweets with rivals literally begging for a retweet to no avail. Whereas the ones who've mastered FB must be absolutely killing it - raking it in.
* when someone famous/important dies, I reckon it's actively disrespectful and undignified to put in ungrammatical generic-sadness-expressing tweets from some Joe Public nobody who didn't even know the deceased personally. That really, really galls me.
And on that note, it's an hour from sunrise in the sandpit so time for a rest. Laters.
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/872212853486489600
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
But we'll have a proper grown-up discussion about this after the election.
The day after the attack I suggested there was a background link between one of their number and the Manchester circle.
And it is, sadly, Libya again. Redouane fought in Libya but what is currently in investigation is whether he crossed through some of the same trainers and influencers as young Mr Abedi the Manchester bomber.
I suspect within a week you'll find out that somewhere along the line people involved with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups link the two.
"Corbyn in favour of reintroducing control orders, putting up physical barriers or anything that stops Diane Abbott appearing on TV again."
"Poll": Regardless of phone, face-to-face or online, the process is the same: a sample is taken from a sample frame, weighted to match the population, and conclusions are drawn from the result. Models may or may not be involved in estimating the weights: for example ComRes use a model to estimate the turnout weights, but Survation(?) still uses self-reported likelihood to vote. The underlying statistical theory should be the Central Limit Theorem but the nonrandom nature of the sample and the self-selection element of the panels vitiates this: polling has been a heuristic process for some time now.
"Model": a way of connecting a set of explanatory variables to a response variable via one or more equations. Examples of models include generalised linear models and general additive models. "Modelling" involves choosing the equations and calculating the parameters (or weights) of those equations. Examples of modelling techniques include linear regression and logistic regression.
So: a poll always uses a sample. A model always uses one or more equations. A poll may use a model to calculate any weights...or it may not. A model may use a sample for its explanatory variables...or it may not.
Duty calls.
Bonsoir.
In other news, from March this year, "the Financial Conduct Authority has reopened its investigation into the bail-out of Barclays by Qatar's sovereign wealth fund at the height of the 2008 financial crisis".
So perhaps Trinity College, Cambridge, will get its talons into the Shard?
The Saudi princes fund Jihadist terror around the world, they smash up Yemen, they love Trump to bits, and now it looks as though they want to break their Salafist competitors in Qatar. They are expanding their influence and the US and Israel are supporting them. Events are pointing towards a Saudi attack on Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFX2ZpVJjY
Firstly the farmers are not happy nowadays, as the SNP have screwed up the payment of the EU subsidies and they haven't been paid out correctly, if at all, for the past 2 years. You really couldn't make this up - the SNP government then organised loans to be made available to the farmers to cover them until the subsidies could be paid out, at the full commercial bank rate. Now as the farmers don't have the money they have budgeted in, they can't buy stock, equipment or new tractors, which means that all the suppliers are suffering as well - and the chain continues down the line.
The fisherfolk, East, North East, Islands and West Coast are not happy as no one has talked to them about the EU fishing restrictions and quotas. They want out of the EU while Sturgeon witters on about staying in.
As there is very little industry apart from farming and fishing in the North East, (Oil: only a few executives and managers live locally, the riggers and crews live mostly south of the border) there is now tremendous pressure on the SNP core vote. As an aside, the North East was the main treasure chest of the SNP, and according to reports, there have been no large donations to the SNP coffers this year.
Dundee, one of the SNP MP's has been cleared of fraudulently mis-representing testimonials on his financial services website, plus, SNP MP's have a reputation for being generous to themselves with their expense accounts. Certainly didn't do as well as they expected in the recent Council Elections.
Glasgow, broken promises about retaining hospitals, wards and A&E's have annoyed many. Black was shouted down by a crowd when she tried to give a speech outside, I believe, her constituency office. Again, a reputation of flying into Glasgow airport on a Friday evening, partying till Sunday night with her friends and back on the plane on Monday morning to Westminster.
And McGarry. From a family very close to the leadership. With a personal problem with SNP charities and fund raisers, money going through her personal PayPal account and not reaching the relevant bank accounts. But there are several other more serious charges outstanding against her, apart from marrying a Tory councillor.
These are just a few of the problems that the SNP leadership have boxed themselves in to. The symptoms of the SNP malaise can be found in most parts of Scotland. Will it show on Thursday, don't know, but Dugdale is now suddenly full of beans, while Sturgeon is not her usual bouncy self.
Con 42, Lab 38. Previous poll was 44/38.
Also Best PM: May 55, Corbyn 45. Not as big a lead for May as would expect.
However don't know how turnout weighted.
Wrexham, Clwyd South, Bridgend, Barrow & Furness, Copeland,
Bishop Auckland, Darlington, Middlesbrough South, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke South,
Derbyshire NE, Blackpool South, Lancaster, Enfield North, Halifax,
Dewsbury, Wakefield, Penistone, Wolverhampton SW, B’ham Edgbaston,
B'ham Northfield, Mansfield, Ynys Mon, Gedling, City of Chester.
Oldham East, Scunthorpe, Great Grimsby, Dudley North, Walsall North,
Bristol East, Newport West, Edinburgh South, Harrow West, Dagenham.
http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-district-council-were-responsible-for-printing-faulty-ballot-papers/story-30374445-detail/story.html#yQlXvc1VExLEOjvW.99
The filthy rag quotes the filthy man as follows:
"My mate challenged me and said I couldn't prank her. There was no money on the bet, I just thought I'd give it a go (...) Deciding to be Seumas was literally a spur of the moment thing I decided as I was having a cup of tea this morning (...) I (...) feel that anyone with responsibility for money/health/safety should not be allowed a personal email address. It's leaving us all open to an attack (...) I've absolutely nothing against her, I think her grasp on figures is a little ropey, but I don't judge her as a person. She has a kind-looking face."
Yeah, yeah, mate, you got up this morning, and your mate this that and the other, and you've nothing against your victim; you just decided to try to trick a leading Labour politician out of details of the medication she was on, on the eve of an election.
As far as I am concerned, Diane Abbott is a hero for how she has kept on giving interviews as long as she could, despite her illness, and despite the concentrated Tory attacks on her, which have often involved the blowing of racist dogwhistles, in order to do her utmost to remove the Nasty party from office.
Both the Daily Mail and the Sun will look like utter hypocrites in 2022 - assuming much of the world hasn't been nuked by then - if they dare so much as utter a peep of complaint in the event that anti-Tory hackers take down their websites and their other scummy operations so that they can't publish this kind of propaganda.
DIABETIC Mrs May laughed off Labour smears that she was too “unwell” to be PM — and insisted there were “no limits” to her abilities.
She said her general health was good and her daily insulin injections had never got in the way of doing her job.
After Mrs May, who has Type 1 diabetes, skipped a live TV debate and radio appearance, Corbyn ally Paul Mason told the BBC: “We’re actually entitled to ask, is she unwell?”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3716834/theresa-may-comes-out-fighting-and-vows-to-boost-economy-and-put-britain-on-right-path-for-decades/
The Mail does not directly mention Ms Abbott's illness (you have to search the original tweets).
A case of Motes & Beams I think....