politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters stick with the ICM/ComRes view of the election – not Y
Comments
-
I was going to say that we won't have to worry about UKIP the next time but in fairness we have barely worried this time. Man is a complete idiot.TheScreamingEagles said:Well Paul Nuttall has no idea about Scottish law. Which I find odd as he's not only got an LLB he's also an eminent QC
https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/871499395648323585-1 -
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?AlastairMeeks said:There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?0 -
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
0 -
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll lead volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.IanB2 said:
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.FrancisUrquhart said:
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.MikeSmithson said:
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.RobD said:
Who actually believes that 1% poll?FrancisUrquhart said:"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.0 -
-
Trump increasingly has the problem that any mainstream politician, certainly in Europe, benefits bigly in electoral terms from being attacked by him, while being in any way accommodating actually requires you to spend political capital.calum said:
Macron and Merkel have both realised this and take every opportunity to quietly feed it (without coming across as equally petty-minded and aggressive). His absurd feud with Khan must be excellent for the Mayor's re-election prospects, every tweet making him look like a genuinely world figure rather than a local politician, and one who is on the right side of the debate in the public consciousness simply by being on the other side from Trump.
Trump has the opposite of cultural capital, and the Great Deal-maker doesn't appear to have a clue that he's making doing any deal on anything, even a mutually beneficial one, incredibly difficult for himself.0 -
If they can work out how to refine the results it is a win.Scott_P said:
If YouGov correctly predict a number of "surprising" results, while still getting the overall total wildly wrong, is that a win for them or not?AlastairMeeks said:I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
0 -
No doubt he was cheering them on.Scott_P said:
@TheRedRag: Corbyn didn't call upon Margaret Thatcher to resign after the Brighton Bomb - he called upon the IRA to come to Westminster. #SoftOnTerrorRobD said:Yes, fertile ground for the Tories as Corbyn doesn't have the perception of being strong on security issues.
0 -
The interplay with the referendum result almost certainly means more switchers this time. Which was what worried the SNP at the start of the campaign. Those voters whose referendum vote doesn't line up with their normally preferred party, and/or the views of their local candidate, are more likely to switch. Hence the relatively good ratings the LibDems are getting in Inner London (judging from the handful of regional polls), and conversely poorer ones in the West Country.AlastairMeeks said:
You're thinking too much about one side of the fence. UKIP's vote has apparently largely decamped.Restharrow said:
Have some groups of voters shifted dramatically? Or is a younger cohort of tech-savvy Labour supporters learning how to game the polls? It would be richly ironic (and well-deserved) if their success in conjuring a Labour surge out of thin air merely stiffens the sinews of those determined to resist it.AlastairMeeks said:There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?0 -
I suspect this is true
@Mr_Eugenides: May needs to tell Trump to fuck off in no uncertain terms. It would be worth 20 seats at least.0 -
Yes, but in regional accounting totals, it's in the North East.SandyRentool said:
Erm, Middlesbrough South is in Yorkshire, not County Durham!Dadge said:
Tories are leading by 8% nationally. In play in NE: Bp Auckland, Darlington, Middlesbrough S.BannedInParis said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_County_DurhamThe_Taxman said:Somebody is telling stories i.e. Canterbury.
Back in the real world Corbyn is in County Durham! They didn't specify on sky which one of the seats he is visiting but they seem to range from approximately 4,000 majority to about 15,000.
So is this evidence of a strategic genius who is going to win the GE or alternatively and more likely Labour are in panic mode scuttling around trying to save what they have got?
if any of those are IN PLAY ... then the 1 % is a crock,right?0 -
Yep, came to same conclusion. If you knock out Survation the spread of polls looks a little less silly: YG+4, Ipsos+5, Opin+6, PB+8, Orb+9, Kantar+10, ICM+11, CR+12. MoE is 3ish for Ipsos/PB/Kantar, 2% the rest.IanB2 said:
The 1% poll is the most extreme because Survation not only uses the Youth Tsunami model, like YouGov, but also deletes everyone who won't say or is undecided from their sample without doing any demographic rebalancing. Hence, because very few younger voters are undecided or won't say, they have a weighting towards the young greater even than YG. Realistically the Survation result is impossible even if the young turnnout en masse.
If +8 is the true picture, none of them are really that far off.0 -
It would kill her justification. She would have to find some way to withdraw the Indy Request.Cyan said:
@Calum - if Labour form the next government, whether with or without a majority, they will try to keep Britain in the single market and the customs union. Will Nicola Sturgeon then withdraw the request for a referendum, or at least put it on hold?calum said:Losers lament !
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/8717201635314237440 -
Bloody hell the Corbyn surge might be real.
A Corbyn supporter at Magdalene!!
Magdalene bans Labour posters
https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2017/06/05/breaking-magdalene-bans-labour-posters-954630 -
AndyJS said:
Technical point for anoraks: the 37.8% the Tories polled in GB at GE2015 is arrived at by including John Bercow's votes in the Conservative total. If it isn't included they polled 37.7%. (To two decimal points, 37.78% and 37.66% respectively. Interesting how one seat can make that sort of difference).
Undoubtedly Buckingham would vote Conservative were there a candidate - but there hasn't been one in the last three elections, nor Labour nor Lib Dem.AndyJS said:Technical point for anoraks: the 37.8% the Tories polled in GB at GE2015 is arrived at by including John Bercow's votes in the Conservative total. If it isn't included they polled 37.7%. (To two decimal points, 37.78% and 37.66% respectively. Interesting how one seat can make that sort of difference).
This is a disgrace when there is a perfectly good alternative way of making the Speaker arrangement. Once elected by MPs, the Speaker would become the MPs' MP for the St Stephens constituency of Westminster and a by-election held for an MP in the Speaker's original constituency.
This would allow the electors in the constituency to have an MP who could debate issues in parliament and vote in parliament, unlike now. Also there would be a full choice of political party to choose from.
75,000 Buckingham electors are currently disenfranchised.
The House of Commons Procedure Committee rejected the St Stephens' solution in 2011. Westminster showing how little it cares for local electors. Shameful.0 -
It's the one thing for which he could claim to be prize-winning without anyone doubting his word.DavidL said:
I was going to say that we won't have to worry about UKIP the next time but in fairness we have barely worried this time. Man is a complete idiot.TheScreamingEagles said:Well Paul Nuttall has no idea about Scottish law. Which I find odd as he's not only got an LLB he's also an eminent QC
https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/8714993956483235850 -
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.Patrick said:
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.IanB2 said:
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.FrancisUrquhart said:
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.MikeSmithson said:
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.RobD said:
Who actually believes that 1% poll?FrancisUrquhart said:"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
0 -
I always thought that OGH was a LibDem....
https://order-order.com/2017/06/05/mike-smithsons-libdem-tip-letters/0 -
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...0
-
I can't help but think losing Hartlepool and something with Middlebrough in the name will look really bad the next day.0
-
Did you see that Gold chain that Donald Trump received the other day? He obviously liked it because he gestured it was heavy! Donald likes the gold.Cyan said:
I was watching the film Brewster's millions and I think they must have filmed part of that in Trumps apartment. It had not changed in 30 years!0 -
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory0 -
Lab majority 14,000. The news keeps on getting better.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
The champagne gets opened?Floater said:
What happens when he loses?FrancisUrquhart said:Just been invited to a business related Jezza victory party....awkward....
0 -
The colleges always do this.TheScreamingEagles said:Bloody hell the Corbyn surge might be real.
A Corbyn supporter at Magdalene!!
Magdalene bans Labour posters
https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2017/06/05/breaking-magdalene-bans-labour-posters-95463
0 -
Some sort of warehouse
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/8717185506748252180 -
Well no one is accusing them of herding this time.MikeSmithson said:
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.RobD said:
Who actually believes that 1% poll?FrancisUrquhart said:"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
I am working on the basis that even May can't screw this pooch in only 3 days. Those who thought Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were not fit to be MPs, let alone Ministers still think so despite several sighs of exasperation at one of the poorest campaigns I can recall. Tory majority of 90.0 -
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can beat the SNP here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.0 -
Indeed I just wondered whether our own Corbyn-ite felt the same.David_Evershed said:
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory0 -
and his little media helper is going off the deep-end too.... desperate stuff.David_Evershed said:
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/871731062241722369
0 -
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire. 0 -
I don't think Brexit was out of pattern at all. Very high turnout = Tories win. Tory in the case of Brexit being real Tory/kippery Tory not Davey/Georgey/TINO Tory.IanB2 said:
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.Patrick said:
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.IanB2 said:
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.FrancisUrquhart said:
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.MikeSmithson said:
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.RobD said:
Who actually believes that 1% poll?FrancisUrquhart said:"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
0 -
Nick Cohen:
"The lesson of this election will be that you never take on the baby boomers. Theresa May did, and look what happened to her."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/election-2017-triumph-wealthy/0 -
In Edinburgh South, that means voting for CorbynRobD said:
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
0 -
Worth it.Pulpstar said:
In East Lothian, that means voting for CorbynRobD said:
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
0 -
Did they give a reason?David_Evershed said:The House of Commons Procedure Committee rejected the St Stephens' solution in 2011. Westminster showing how little it cares for local electors. Shameful.
0 -
The lady is clearly starting to believe her own publicity.FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.0 -
Andrew said:
Not sure how useful they are with such a wide range of polling numbers, but keeping track of the various models and a couple others...
354 Britain Elects
355 Ashcroft
361 Baxter
365 Hanretty
367 Tory best-poll method (ICM)
369 SpIndex
The polls might not be herding, but the models certainly are.
0 -
Furniture removals.calum said:Some sort of warehouse
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/871718550674825218
Freudian.0 -
Kippery Tories are TINO socialists under the skin. That's why it's all going to pot now.Patrick said:
I don't think Brexit was out of pattern at all. Very high turnout = Tories win. Tory in the case of Brexit being real Tory/kippery Tory not Davey/Georgey/TINO Tory.IanB2 said:
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.Patrick said:
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.IanB2 said:
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.FrancisUrquhart said:
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.MikeSmithson said:
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.RobD said:
Who actually believes that 1% poll?FrancisUrquhart said:"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.0 -
Got the tactical voting juices flowing?FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can beat the SNP here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
0 -
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
I am ignorant about such matters, but isn't it possible for people to join an online panel, claim to have voted UKIP last time then profess support for Corbyn now? It would be the online equivalent of that familiar letter or comment that begins "I've always voted Conservative but ..." Once there is a suspicion that the polls are being manipulated (and perhaps some are more vulnerable than others) it's hard to deduce anything from them. For example, how does YouGov know where you live, rather than where you claim you live? Or am I presuming too much organised intelligence by party supporters?AlastairMeeks said:
You're thinking too much about one side of the fence. UKIP's vote has apparently largely decamped.Restharrow said:
Have some groups of voters shifted dramatically? Or is a younger cohort of tech-savvy Labour supporters learning how to game the polls? It would be richly ironic (and well-deserved) if their success in conjuring a Labour surge out of thin air merely stiffens the sinews of those determined to resist it.AlastairMeeks said:There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?0 -
Gateshead??? He shouldn't be anywhere near there!RobD said:
Lab majority 14,000. The news keeps on getting better.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
This is a simple question and the answer is that the terrorists are responsible for terrorism.TOPPING said:
Indeed I just wondered whether our own Corbyn-ite felt the same.David_Evershed said:
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory
If any politician is hampering the police and the security services from preventing the terrorists succeeding then it is fair to criticise them.0 -
There doesn't seem to be a pattern to his visits really, certainly not going to loads of seats that might be in play if the polls more favorable to Labour might match the data or the feedback they have.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
What about the movement of some senior Labour figures? Maybe in areas where they think a seat is winnable but Corbyn is not seen as well liked as his party is right now. Those might be better indicators of how it's really going.0 -
Lack of proof that would stand up in court....? They were found guilty in the first round.....RobD said:
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
0 -
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
If it's just a question of too many young people, or too many oldies, or a sample unbalanced by last voting behaviour, they can compensate by weighting according to whatever sub-catogories they think appropriate.OblitusSumMe said:
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?AlastairMeeks said:There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
The really interesting - and difficult - question, is what if the type (by vote) of people who respond to polls is different from the type of people who don't, or won't?0 -
In a sense almost all "technicalities" are actually features rather than bugs in the law.RobD said:
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
If you injure me but it can't be proved the event was more than an accident, you're not guilty of GBH. If I take your goods but can convince a jury I intended to return the items, I'm not guilty of theft. But in both cases, the purpose of the law is to prevent people being hurt and items being walked off with, so our acquittals are fine, but rather different from showing that I wasn't actually injured or that you were mistaken about the loss of items.
In this case the Conservative Party did (in the CPS's view) overspend against the election limits, which is precisely the wrong the law was intended to prevent. However, the CPS did not consider they had a reasonable prospect of convincing a jury that anyone who signed the (incorrect) numbers was being dishonest. So it's fair enough not to convict people, but the harm the law was intended to prevent did actually happen (in he CPS's view).0 -
Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."0 -
Then why did Cameron spend the final days of the 2015 campaign marauding around the South West?AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
Like Corbyn, Trump backed the Provos. He is the most anti-British US President in living memory.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Trump increasingly has the problem that any mainstream politician, certainly in Europe, benefits bigly in electoral terms from being attacked by him, while being in any way accommodating actually requires you to spend political capital.calum said:
Macron and Merkel have both realised this and take every opportunity to quietly feed it (without coming across as equally petty-minded and aggressive). His absurd feud with Khan must be excellent for the Mayor's re-election prospects, every tweet making him look like a genuinely world figure rather than a local politician, and one who is on the right side of the debate in the public consciousness simply by being on the other side from Trump.
Trump has the opposite of cultural capital, and the Great Deal-maker doesn't appear to have a clue that he's making doing any deal on anything, even a mutually beneficial one, incredibly difficult for himself.
0 -
It's notable that the White House has yet to release ANY official statement on the London attack - instead of which we have the *President of the United States* misrepresenting and trolling the London Mayor.TheScreamingEagles said:
Perhaps a new low for the moral homunculus in the Oval Office.
0 -
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?0
-
-
I found the movie very bland. It was Black Hawk Down, on a shoestring budget and nobody compelling, was my major impression.TOPPING said:Film review in today's Guardian (of '71, set during The Troubles):
"..this is a ferocious action movie suffused with nailbiting tension, as Hook tries to stay ahead of provisionals and equally deadly undercover agents."
ie for Graun readers and I daresay plenty of others, The Troubles, PIRA, Warrington, etc are now in the realms of history where, as with much historical analysis, equivalence can be drawn between each opposing side.
In this context, I wonder, especially of course for the young, how much of an effect all this banging on about Jezza and the IRA will have.
PS. great film, '71.0 -
JonathanD said:Andrew said:
Not sure how useful they are with such a wide range of polling numbers, but keeping track of the various models and a couple others...
354 Britain Elects
355 Ashcroft
361 Baxter
365 Hanretty
367 Tory best-poll method (ICM)
369 SpIndex
The polls might not be herding, but the models certainly are.
They have to otherwise they become arbitrage possibilities.0 -
0
-
Yeah, that was the administrative side of things. They did not think they could prove criminal intent.PClipp said:
Lack of proof that would stand up in court....? They were found guilty in the first round.....RobD said:
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
0 -
I thought Corbyn was ridiculous saying she should resign due to the fact we will have a General Election on Thursday. It shows poor judgement by Corbyn IMO.Scott_P said:Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."0 -
Lol. I wonder whether those Labour candidates in the genuine marginals, who made sure Corbyn wasn't planning to come anywhere near them, are now regretting it?Gallowgate said:
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
You can get *some* votes without any sort of campaign. I know, I've done it - but winning a seat is another matter.Gallowgate said:
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
Lab majority 14,000 - Should be a big enthusiastic crowd out for Corbyn I'd have thought - this is like Trump visiting Missouri.0 -
You might have thought the Conservative and UNIONIST Party would have something to say about what's happening in the United Kingdom, especially as they are running the government of it. It is after all an election to the UK parliament. The SNP have a FAR more coherent policy for the UK, even though they want to separate from it, than the Ruth Davidson Party, on the basis of this leaflet.RobD said:
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...FF43 said:Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.0 -
And why do so many people think Clinton's campaign focused on the wrong states?RobD said:
Then why did Cameron spend the final days of the 2015 campaign marauding around the South West?AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
If it really didn't matter surely campaigns would be based somewhere as it would be a more efficient use of time and money.0 -
Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.0
-
Labour are probably worried about a potential swing to the Tories in Northumberland and Teeside, perhaps Gateshead is the most obvious place to hold a rally for those areas.Gallowgate said:
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
Pairing?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
0 -
The exit poll actually asks people after voting at selected polling stations. If the young don't turnout they won't be in the exit poll.stevef said:Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
0 -
No it fucking wouldn't, as well you know.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Or maybe you'd like to be charged with say rape, without any grounds for that charge, by a vindictive ex-girlfriend and to then have the charges rightly thrown out - but to be forever known as "that rapist'?
If your party gets reduced to one seat on Thursday, it will be one seat too many.0 -
They are asking voters walking out of polling stations how they voted. Suspect they will be able to cross-check who they asked against the electoral roll to gauge turnout pretty well.stevef said:Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
0 -
It spooked a few on here, but I've not heard that one mentioned at all in real life - if someone hears about it for the first time and believes the most negative interpretation, I could see it being effective, but I wonder how much it is coming through.MarqueeMark said:
Jeremy Corbyn's Garden Tax is way more effective.....TravelJunkie said:
I don't talk to traitors. (scum who put their party first country second). People who live in essex put their country people in places like berkshire, devon put themselves first. Traitors to the state.MarqueeMark said:
No, Kippers are going to pour out and vote for Jeremy 'open the borders and let them all in" Corbyn......TravelJunkie said:the problem we've got is that everyone is assuming that ukip voters in former labour seats are going to vote tory, they might not.
Go outside and knock on strangers doors and scare them with the IRA.0 -
The exit poll is real samples at real polling stations.stevef said:Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
I assume they will be able to determine the age of the people they interview...0 -
This was debated here a while back. The consensus was that, with YG (which is the only poll you can really volunteer for) it would be difficult, and need some level or organisation, but not impossible. But unlikely. I would have thought the fact that YG has been joined by other non-panel pollsters producing similar results, based on self-certified high youth turnouts, suggests that we are probably not looking at manipulation as one of the explanations here?Restharrow said:Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.
0 -
It's bold, but what if it is not that much of a change election.AlastairMeeks said:I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
Personally I think the UKIp vote might not go back to the Tories as much as thought, Lab will surge but not by as much as they hope, and the LDs will do about as well as predicted, leaving a smallish majority of 40.0 -
The Terrorists are responsible.TOPPING said:
Indeed I just wondered whether our own Corbyn-ite felt the same.David_Evershed said:
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory
0 -
The press story they wanted was "Mrs May cut police numbers when she was home sec". But this isn't news. "Corbyn calls for PM to resign" is news, and got the story they wanted a lot of prominence in the media.The_Taxman said:
I thought Corbyn was ridiculous saying she should resign due to the fact we will have a General Election on Thursday. It shows poor judgement by Corbyn IMO.Scott_P said:Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."0 -
OGH was saying the other day that the Tory leaders visit to the south west was indicative of the narrowing of the polls narrative. I disagreed with that because it is a slightly different dynamic for the Tories and LD as the nearest challenger. But Corbyn visiting rock solid Labour seats 3 days before the vote is not good at all for Labour.AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
To be truthful I think the opinion polls are not right (I have my own views on why, which I will keep to myself). I suspect the Tories are miles out in front and it will be a landslide Tory victory.0 -
I don't think (but stand to be corrected) that exit polls have the same problem because they don't seek to speak to a prescribed number of students, pensioners etc.stevef said:Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
They just ask people who actually vote at selected polling stations the catchment area of which is likely to be reflective of the population. If the catchment for the polling station is 20% 18-24 year olds and 30% over 65s, but in the event an amazing surge amongst the youth means 30% of voters are in the youngest group and only 25% pensioners... well, there's no need for adjustment as the pollsters talk to them outside the polling station.0 -
That'll be "real life" feedback from Torbay I suspect.kle4 said:
It spooked a few on here, but I've not heard that one mentioned at all in real life - if someone hears about it for the first time and believes the most negative interpretation, I could see it being effective, but I wonder how much it is coming through.MarqueeMark said:
Jeremy Corbyn's Garden Tax is way more effective.....TravelJunkie said:
I don't talk to traitors. (scum who put their party first country second). People who live in essex put their country people in places like berkshire, devon put themselves first. Traitors to the state.MarqueeMark said:
No, Kippers are going to pour out and vote for Jeremy 'open the borders and let them all in" Corbyn......TravelJunkie said:the problem we've got is that everyone is assuming that ukip voters in former labour seats are going to vote tory, they might not.
Go outside and knock on strangers doors and scare them with the IRA.0 -
Don't you have access to the internet and their local web site and/or Facebook page?Gallowgate said:
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
Part 1 of 2
It's worth remembering that control orders were watered down not because May or the coalition government chose to do this of their own free will but because of a decision by the Lords (the court) that they breached various human rights provisions.
Those are the human rights provisions under the HRA which Labour brought in. Any time any suggested amendment is proposed to make it harder for terrorists/criminals to operate, the Left - and, to be fair, others - have argued hard against this.
TPIMs are the most the government can do given the restrictions on it as a result of our laws and international commitments. We can argue about whether the laws should be changed or whether we should be signatories to the ECHR but to suggest that the coalition deliberately weakened our anti-terrorist controls voluntarily or from conviction is a travesty.
Corbyn has never believed in taking action against terrorists, as his Parliamentary record shows. Whether that is because he is a libertarian or because he is a supporter of terrorism or because he does not see it as much of a problem or for some other reasons, people can assess for themselves.
As for our approach to Islamist terrorism and Islamist extremism in our country - as per this from Tatchell https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/871646549616603137, all parties have been pretty feeble and appeasing: from Howard thinking that throwing money at so-called "community leaders" would help to Blair closing the BaE SFO investigation at the behest of the Saudis to all governments cosying up to the Muslim Brotherhood and various ghastly Middle Eastern regimes etc. All of them have a pretty poor record.
Why? All of them have failed properly to engage with the nature of Islam as both a religion and a political ideology; all of them have failed or refused to understand the nature of the extremist winds which have been blowing through the Muslim world since at least 1979; all of them have failed to understand that importing a significant credal culture into a secular democracy poses some real challenges which cannot be resolved by mouthing platitudes and all of them have been too frit to challenge bad behavior or to stand up for the values they claim to believe in.
0 -
The thing that really surprised me was when they said they had to dial 20 phone numbers to get one response. As far as I can tell this makes all opinion polls self-selecting voodoo polls and I'm surprised that they do as well as they do.IanB2 said:
If it's just a question of too many young people, or too many oldies, or a sample unbalanced by last voting behaviour, they can compensate by weighting according to whatever sub-catogories they think appropriate.OblitusSumMe said:
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?AlastairMeeks said:There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
The really interesting - and difficult - question, is what if the type (by vote) of people who respond to polls is different from the type of people who don't, or won't?
The fundamental assumption underpinning the mathematical basis of opinion polling - that the sample is random - is completely shot to pieces.
Much as I've been entertained by the reactions to the opinion polls in this campaign it does disturb me that they have such an influence on the campaign narrative when they are so fundamentally flawed.0 -
They stand outside polling booths and ask people to submit a second secret ballot.stevef said:Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
0 -
You make a very fair point. From the anecdotes, there are a lot of voters who don't want to vote Conservative but who don't see an alternative. They might decide simply not to vote.kle4 said:
It's bold, but what if it is not that much of a change election.AlastairMeeks said:I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
Personally I think the UKIp vote might not go back to the Tories as much as thought, Lab will surge but not by as much as they hope, and the LDs will do about as well as predicted, leaving a smallish majority of 40.0 -
More to the point if some idiot popped up on a blog and posted a comment accusing you of rape, the owner of said blog might have to call his lawyers.MarqueeMark said:
No it fucking wouldn't, as well you know.PClipp said:
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?Ishmael_Z said:
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweetPolruan said:Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Or maybe you'd like to be charged with say rape, without any grounds for that charge, by a vindictive ex-girlfriend and to then have the charges rightly thrown out - but to be forever known as "that rapist'?
I think Mr Clipp should shut up about this before he falls through the rather thin ice he's treading on.0 -
Part 2 of 2
Enough is indeed enough. I don't have much confidence that either the Tories or Labour will do much about this or as much as ought to be done. I have, though, much much less confidence in Corbyn precisely because of his past record, because I don't believe that the sensible things he's been saying recently really represent a genuine change of mind and because of who his closest allies are and what they have said and done.
But I also don't think this particular debate will much help the Tories. Whether more police would help or not is moot. But it does feed into an impression that sometimes the Tories know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Good security does not come cheap. If the aid budget can be protected how much more should this apply to the security/police budget?
If I - as an "Anyone But Corbyn" voter - feels like this, can we really be sure that the Tories will win?
I increasingly feel Corbyn might do it. I hope, I really hope, I'm wrong. It will IMO be a moral, political and economic disaster for Britain. But if the last year has taught us anything, it should have taught us that "it should not happen" does not mean "it won't happen".
If I am wrong you can all laugh and jeer at me on Thursday night. If not, I shall be a political seer.
0 -
Perhaps has been advised to play to the galleries and hence to the TV cameras. Wasn't that what "Sheffield" was all about in Kinnock's case?Slackbladder said:
Gateshead??? He shouldn't be anywhere near there!RobD said:
Lab majority 14,000. The news keeps on getting better.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
They just want film of him being adored, not challenged.AndyJS said:
Labour are probably worried about a potential swing to the Tories in Northumberland and Teeside, perhaps Gateshead is the most obvious place to hold a rally for those areas.Gallowgate said:
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
Indeed.Restharrow said:Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.
Has any Tory canvasser found anyone who actually switched their vote away from us Blues since the election campaign began?0 -
@jonswaine: London Labour MPs/candidates @wesstreeting and @DavidLammy have called for Donald Trump's UK state visit to be cancelled. Expect more.0
-
Was talking to my dad yesterday about Thursday, hes old school metal worker from Derbyshire, always voted Labour. Told me he "won't be wasting his time" this election
Though I's share it0 -
Owen Jones tweeted on Saturday night about what a great time he and his friends were having in a West End bar, while innocent people were dying in the street barely a mile away. Then it was all "eat, drink and be merry - show them we won't be cowed". Today it's all panic stations, resign, bring back the beat bobbies, something must be done. He must have had one hell of a hangover if it lasted 36 hours.Scrapheap_as_was said:
and his little media helper is going off the deep-end too.... desperate stuff.David_Evershed said:
According to Corbyn May is responsible.TOPPING said:
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?bigjohnowls said:
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.Floater said:
Big John spinning? consider me (not) shockedTOPPING said:
Missing a bit aren't you?bigjohnowls said:Terrorism Act 2000
May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading)
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
May absent at Third Reading
Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
May: Voted against it
Control Orders
The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.
May: Voted against it
introduction of ID cards 2006.
May voted against it
The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010.
Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings
May voted against it
Counter-terrorism Act 2008
This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days
May: Absent from the vote
Legislation for closed press free courts.
May: absent at Third Reading
.
bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/8717310622417223690 -
Has the PM resigned yet?
Just asking for a friend (of Jeremy). Liz at Buck House is keen to know too.0 -
Corbyn retracts his call for May to resign and says leave it till Thursday and qualifies it as 'a lot of people would want her to resign if she were still HS'
She isn't and u turning on his call within two hours is pathetic in the extreme. He's flailing.0 -
An extra bit of holiday?RobD said:
Then why did Cameron spend the final days of the 2015 campaign marauding around the South West?AndyJS said:
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.Gallowgate said:FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
0 -
So much for Cyan's theory that Corbyn is a misundersood genius.Scott_P said:Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."0 -
But the Churchill bust is back in the Oval Office, so that's nice.SouthamObserver said:Like Corbyn, Trump backed the Provos. He is the most anti-British US President in living memory.
0 -
Good news for Lab in London bad news for his designated hand holder methinksNigelb said:
It's notable that the White House has yet to release ANY official statement on the London attack - instead of which we have the *President of the United States* misrepresenting and trolling the London Mayor.TheScreamingEagles said:
Perhaps a new low for the moral homunculus in the Oval Office.0
