politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus change their much criticised party ID weightings wh
Given the frequency of Populus online polls today’s change in methodlogy is an important event if only because the firm that traditionally had the lowest UKIP numbers will now be up there amongst the highest.
Comments
-
Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
0 -
According this Im still a Labour supporter (no prompt for UKIP)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/06/what-your-tv-favourites-say-about-your-politics/
Only watch 1 Tory prog (Strickers), 3 Labour (Phoenix Nights, The Office & Frasier) and no LDs0 -
Even if the change is just methodological, the narrowing gap between Labour and the Conservatives will do nothing to make Labour supporters feel any happier.0
-
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..
0 -
An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour:
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."0 -
Well lets seeMikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..
UKIP score 15 in a poll
45% are 2010 Conservatives, that's 6.75
14% are 2010 LDs, that's 2.1
8% are 2010 Labour that's 1.2
The remaining 33% are others and DNV, that's 5
That 33% includes 2010 UKIP voters I believe? So lets assume for arguments sake UKIP have retained this vote, that is 60% of the remaining score of 5 (3)
So
2010 Con 6.75
2010 LD 2.1
2010 Lab 1.2
2010 UKIP 3
Makes 13.05 of the UKIP score of 15, leaving 1.95/15 as others DNV
13% of UKIP voters were others or DNV in 2010. I said 10.7, apologies
I think Farage said it was 20% in "The Late Debate" on ITV last night, I will rewatch and check. Mike you should watch that programme if poss, ComeRes Director and Matthew Goodwin spent 15 mins analysing UKIPs effect on the polls.0 -
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..0 -
O/T:
Chris Smith — from flying the red flag at Islington Council in 1983 to touring the Somerset Levels in 2014:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWvcdyQITs&0 -
@david_herdson We don't know.
Other polling where this has been measured specifically has found that quite a large proportion of current UKIP supporters did not vote in 2010.0 -
Actually, I've slightly over-egged that. Of the 92 UK seats that UKIP didn't contest, a very high relative proportion were in Scotland or N Ireland, where their base level is lower, so I reckon that the number of 2010 UKIP voters would be more like 40-45. Even so, add in the 130 ex-Con/-Lab/-LD and you're already close to the 202 total and net gains from Others should take them closer still. I suspect that no more than 10% of their total has come from DNV.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..0 -
Fags, deep fried mars bars and booze good for vote winning policies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26082480
"An independent Scotland could delay the rise in the state pension age by 12 years, according to economic analysis.
It could benefit from a lower cost of providing pensions as Scots, on average, have shorter lives than the rest of the UK (rUK)."
Vote Yes - die young.0 -
Ive just shown how that is not true.. unless you think 2010 UKIP voters have deserted the party in droves.. and no one who voted BNP in 2010 is voting UKIP now.MikeSmithson said:@david_herdson We don't know.
Other polling where this has been measured specifically has found that quite a large proportion of current UKIP supporters did not vote in 2010.
Plenty of leftys on here will tell you different!!0 -
Are you implying that having less tory MPs than pandas in scotland was some kind of deliberate democratic choice and not 'prejudice'Hugh said:I doubt any Scot will vote on that basis.
Cameron intervening might remind them of the merits of self-determination Vs Southern English Tory rule though.
How dare you!
Next thing you'll be saying the PB tories are about as likely to persuade the scottish public as Chicken Cameron and then where would we be?
LOL0 -
Jack W (FPT)
Given your earlier comments, when you sell your house for £200,000, only to see it on the market again a couple of months later for £350,000, you will no doubt consider yourself to have got a bargain. You will no doubt also think that the estate agent earned every penny of his hefty commission, and that it was fortunate that you accepted that offer from the friend of the agent who came around before it even went on the market even though you had to turn seven other viewers away the very next day.
Just bear in mind that your neighbours may not share that rosy view. And please don't lecture me on the success of the Royal Mail privatisation.
I find that those here who descend into name calling (in your case "economically illiterate" etc.) invariably do so in the absence of a coherent argument.0 -
The Survation single consituency polling did have figures. Thus in Thanet South 29% of UKIP support was from non-voters.david_herdson said:
Actually, I've slightly over-egged that. Of the 92 UK seats that UKIP didn't contest, a very high relative proportion were in Scotland or N Ireland, where their base level is lower, so I reckon that the number of 2010 UKIP voters would be more like 40-45. Even so, add in the 130 ex-Con/-Lab/-LD and you're already close to the 202 total and net gains from Others should take them closer still. I suspect that no more than 10% of their total has come from DNV.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..
0 -
Farmers Guardian @FarmersGuardian 22m
It's like a war zone: #Somerset Levels farmers speak of #floods horror http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/hot-topics/climate-change/somerset-levels-farmers-speak-of-floods-horror/62120.article#.UvTX60Ip3RM.twitter …
Iain Duncan Smith MP @IDS_MP 4h
As he prepares to visit flood stricken Somerset the PM is briefed by the military. pic.twitter.com/3mxkiHYKIK0 -
An independent Scotland will face a spiralling black hole in its finances and could be forced to adopt its own currency, a leading economic think tank has predicted.
The boost from North Sea oil tax revenues would never be enough to plug the £7 billion-a-year gap left by the removal of top-ups from Westminster, it was claimed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10624305/Independent-Scotland-faces-spiralling-black-hole-in-finances.html0 -
True, and that's something that UKIP themselves say - and which does make some sense given their electoral pitch. Even so, if UKIP had a national equivalent vote of about 3.5% in 2010 and is now at 15%, you'd expect a little over a fifth of their current support to have backed them at the last GE.MikeSmithson said:@david_herdson We don't know.
Other polling where this has been measured specifically has found that quite a large proportion of current UKIP supporters did not vote in 2010.
But if that is the case, why is less than a third of their current share UKIP+Others+DNV? It doesn't tally with a VI share of 15%.
Either the methodology is still out, or a sizable share of UKIP's 2010 vote has defected, or they've not picked up much DNV, or it's a rogue sample.0 -
England had to put up with 13 years of Scottish Labour Mafia government.0
-
How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
0 -
What you say is consistent with UKIP always outpolling the polls in actual electionsdavid_herdson said:
True, and that's something that UKIP themselves say - and which does make some sense given their electoral pitch. Even so, if UKIP had a national equivalent vote of about 3.5% in 2010 and is now at 15%, you'd expect a little over a fifth of their current support to have backed them at the last GE.MikeSmithson said:@david_herdson We don't know.
Other polling where this has been measured specifically has found that quite a large proportion of current UKIP supporters did not vote in 2010.
But if that is the case, why is less than a third of their current share UKIP+Others+DNV? It doesn't tally with a VI share of 15%.
Either the methodology is still out, or a sizable share of UKIP's 2010 vote has defected, or they've not picked up much DNV, or it's a rogue sample.0 -
UKIP share of vote by constituency, 2010:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=sheets_web
2010 election results on one page:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHdWdzBpbEl6S29TUmVid3dPR1k4RXc&usp=sheets_web0 -
Another thing for Network Rail and the posturing politicians on sustainable infrastructure or which other buzz phrase is in vogue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-260842450 -
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour:
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
0 -
As opposed to 2010 LDs, who we know voted.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
0 -
We've had some Gove related noise about quango packing recently. Smith is a perfect example of Labour's quango packing. He's an Islington lefty townie chocolate teapot. Of course his primary concern at the environment agency is to save the warblers. People can go hang. River maintenance has collapsed. I heard on Sky News that they spent less on rivers than on their travel budget FFS! Go figure.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour:
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."0 -
Which is why I don't think that Populus' figures make sense. They can't have ~30% DNV + ~25% UKIP + 70% (Con,Lab,LD) + n Oth.MikeSmithson said:
The Survation single consituency polling did have figures. Thus in Thanet South 29% of UKIP support was from non-voters.david_herdson said:
Actually, I've slightly over-egged that. Of the 92 UK seats that UKIP didn't contest, a very high relative proportion were in Scotland or N Ireland, where their base level is lower, so I reckon that the number of 2010 UKIP voters would be more like 40-45. Even so, add in the 130 ex-Con/-Lab/-LD and you're already close to the 202 total and net gains from Others should take them closer still. I suspect that no more than 10% of their total has come from DNV.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..0 -
The Survation constituency polls had UKIP from non voters figures varying from 20 to 33 % depending on constituency .MikeSmithson said:
The Survation single consituency polling did have figures. Thus in Thanet South 29% of UKIP support was from non-voters.david_herdson said:
Actually, I've slightly over-egged that. Of the 92 UK seats that UKIP didn't contest, a very high relative proportion were in Scotland or N Ireland, where their base level is lower, so I reckon that the number of 2010 UKIP voters would be more like 40-45. Even so, add in the 130 ex-Con/-Lab/-LD and you're already close to the 202 total and net gains from Others should take them closer still. I suspect that no more than 10% of their total has come from DNV.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..0 -
So on this poll a Labour lead of 3.
45% of UKIP (equivalent to 6.75%) are former tory voters. Approximately 10% (3.6%) of Labour are 2010 Lib Dems.
There may be reasons that Labour might not be too happy about this.0 -
And that's why governments just love quangos.
Good point. I don;t know how much autonomy Quango heads have in funding allocation etc, but it would be interesting to find out.
0 -
Surely the mistake made is forgetting that UKIP 2010 is included in "others and DNV", therefore not factoring them in at all?david_herdson said:
Which is why I don't think that Populus' figures make sense. They can't have ~30% DNV + ~25% UKIP + 70% (Con,Lab,LD) + n Oth.MikeSmithson said:
The Survation single consituency polling did have figures. Thus in Thanet South 29% of UKIP support was from non-voters.david_herdson said:
Actually, I've slightly over-egged that. Of the 92 UK seats that UKIP didn't contest, a very high relative proportion were in Scotland or N Ireland, where their base level is lower, so I reckon that the number of 2010 UKIP voters would be more like 40-45. Even so, add in the 130 ex-Con/-Lab/-LD and you're already close to the 202 total and net gains from Others should take them closer still. I suspect that no more than 10% of their total has come from DNV.david_herdson said:
Wouldn't we expect a reasonable number of them - about 50 of the 202 - to have voted UKIP in 2010, based on their equivalent UKIP GB vote then and assuming very little leakage (which is likely given a quadrupling of their share). Add in a few from odds and sods - BNP and Eng Dem seem plausible - and that doesn't leave too much space for 2010 DNV's.MikeSmithson said:
That is not correct.isam said:Only around 10.7% (or 1.6 of their score in this poll) of UKIP voters are non voters from last time
The data isn't shown in the tables. What we do know is that of that of the 202 UKIP voters in this poll just 130 voted LAB/CON/LD at GE2010
My reading is that a very high proportion of UKIP supporters didn't vote at GE2010..0 -
I enjoy 3 Labour shows (The Office, Frasier, Mad Men) and don't watch any of the others (except HIGNFY very occasionally). But I'm not a Labour man, if you hadn't guessedisam said:According this Im still a Labour supporter (no prompt for UKIP)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/06/what-your-tv-favourites-say-about-your-politics/
Only watch 1 Tory prog (Strickers), 3 Labour (Phoenix Nights, The Office & Frasier) and no LDs
I'm going to go with this analysis is utter bull, with no predictive power.
All it shows (I presume) is that the Labour and Lib Dem vote is typically younger and more metropolitian in nature.0 -
English seats UKIP didn't contest in 2010:
Greater London: (13)
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Bethnal Green & Bow
Brent Central
Camberwell & Peckham
Ealing Southall
East Ham
Greenwich & Woolwich
Hackney North & Stoke Newington
Hayes & Harlington
Hornsey & Wood Green
Lewisham Deptford
Streatham
Vauxhall
Other areas: (30)
Aldridge-Brownhills — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Batley & Spen
Bexhill & Battle
Birkenhead
Blaydon
Bradford East
Castle Point
Clacton — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Corby
Dewsbury
Haltemprice & Howden
Hemsworth
Hexham
Huddersfield
Jarrow
Kettering — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
Leeds Central
Leeds East
Makerfield
Manchester Gorton
Newcastle Upon Tyne East
Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford
Nuneaton
Richmond (YORKS)
Rochester & Strood
Shipley — (Eurosceptic Tory MP)
South Shields
Tatton
Wakefield
Warrington North0 -
Depends on which pollster you choose really.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
There was an analysis posted on here that showed the kipper vote at last May's locals translated to about 17% while the all polls average points to it being about 15%.
What you can also see if you look closely are the polls that overestimate the kipper vote as well as underestimate it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
So I doubt they'll all be wrong but there is definitely the potential for some pollsters to end up looking very silly indeed if they can't get a handle on the kipper vote by 2015.
Not so for the lib dems. Pretty hard to overestimate or underestimate their support by very much considering they've been flatlining on 10% since late 2010.0 -
I must say that other than the totally cynical motives ascribed by Southam Observer (shame!) it is far from obvious to me why we have a department of the environment and an Enviromental Agency. Surely we should have one or the other. If Ministers started to realise that the price of hiving off the responsibility was the elimination of the sinecure they might be slightly less prone to doing so.
Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery. If you are going to have rule by technocrats surely you get a technocrat not another failed politician.0 -
Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery.
How many chancellors are qualified in economics?0 -
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?0 -
Amazing that the coalition re-appointed him in 2011.Patrick said:Smith is a perfect example of Labour's quango packing. He's an Islington lefty townie chocolate teapot.
0 -
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."0 -
I don't really like the wording though.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour:
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
Implies that Chris Smith and the EA are a scapegoat. Isn't it the case that they *actually do* bear a significant portion of the responsiblity because of their policy on dredging?0 -
You appear to have a turnout of 86% (61k/71k) in 2010 which appears on the high side, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?0 -
But they are politicians.taffys said:Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery.
How many chancellors are qualified in economics?
A more comparable question might be is how many permanent secretaries of the Treasury have not been qualified in economics? Or would you have a head of the OBR that was not a qualified economist? Or a governor of the BoE? Surely not.
Don't get me wrong. Owen Paterson has hardly been one of the shining lights of this government and is very lucky to still be in post so there is no saying that an inhouse operation would have been better but at least he is accountable to the Commons and the PM. Lord Smith is not. Quangos are undemocratic and should be technical, not be the playthings of former politicians.
0 -
If, two years ago, you had told me that UKIP would be polling 15% now, I'd have been very surprised. If you'd told me the Labour lead would be only 3%, I'd have been a little surprised.
But if you'd told me that both of these were going to be the case, I'd have thought you were out with the fairies.0 -
Here's a clue.Charles said:Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?GetBritainOut @GetBritainOut 3h
I somehow doubt that tory MPs in marginals would view even 7% with complete equanimity and it might just be one of the reasons they seem just a little bit excitable these days.
Three cheers for Tory rebels, the real loyalists http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3996882.ece … (£)0 -
Let us not forget that Baron Smith of Finsbury was sacked by Tony Blair after the 2001 election from his job as Culture Minister...of course he was reappointed to the Environment position in 2011 as part of the great Tory purge of quangos....DavidL said:Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery. If you are going to have rule by technocrats surely you get a technocrat not another failed politician.
0 -
The May 2013 UKIP vote was 20% of votes cast.Mick_Pork said:
Depends on which pollster you choose really.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
There was an analysis posted on here that showed the kipper vote at last May's locals translated to about 17% while the all polls average points to it being about 15%.
What you can also see if you look closely are the polls that overestimate the kipper vote as well as underestimate it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
So I doubt they'll all be wrong but there is definitely the potential for some pollsters to end up looking very silly indeed if they can't get a handle on the kipper vote by 2015.
Not so for the lib dems. Pretty hard to over or underestimate their support considering they've been flatlining on 10% since late 2010.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/06/29/final-vote-tally-from-last-months-locals-shows-ukip-in-second-place-in-seats-contested/
The National Equivalent Vote was: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22%.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-30/local-elections-2013
I think you may be thinking of the _current_ council by-elections analysis:
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece
0 -
All part of the great Tory purge......Theuniondivvie said:
Amazing that the coalition re-appointed him in 2011.Patrick said:Smith is a perfect example of Labour's quango packing. He's an Islington lefty townie chocolate teapot.
0 -
Paterson is Smith's boss.DavidL said:
But they are politicians.taffys said:Why Chris Smith was thought a suitable appointment for such an organisation is another and deeper mystery.
How many chancellors are qualified in economics?
A more comparable question might be is how many permanent secretaries of the Treasury have not been qualified in economics? Or would you have a head of the OBR that was not a qualified economist? Or a governor of the BoE? Surely not.
Don't get me wrong. Owen Paterson has hardly been one of the shining lights of this government and is very lucky to still be in post so there is no saying that an inhouse operation would have been better but at least he is accountable to the Commons and the PM. Lord Smith is not. Quangos are undemocratic and should be technical, not be the playthings of former politicians.
"We're an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx
This looks to me very much like an attempt to shift blame.
0 -
Indeed. One would have expected an Evil Baby Eating Tory donor to have got such a plum job.Theuniondivvie said:
Amazing that the coalition re-appointed him in 2011.Patrick said:Smith is a perfect example of Labour's quango packing. He's an Islington lefty townie chocolate teapot.
0 -
Shift from whom? The Environment Agency is the body responsible, is it not? That's the whole idea.SouthamObserver said:
This looks to me very much like an attempt to shift blame.
0 -
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"currystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."0 -
I agree. I am not inclined to blame anyone. The weather is the weather, this is the worst in living memory in the places affected and the Somerset Levels are on or below sea level. But blame is being attached. It always is.currystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
0 -
Jonathan Chatfield re-selected as LD candidate for SE Cambridgeshire, the seat where the Tories have had all sorts of problems over their selection of a new candidate.
https://twitter.com/jonathanchat0 -
Smith reports to Paterson. Paterson got a lot of flack on his visit to Somerset last week. He wasn't even wearing wellies! The finger started being pointed at Smith in, I believe, the Telegraph soon after that.RichardNabavi said:
Shift from whom? The Environment Agency is the body responsible, is it not? That's the whole idea.SouthamObserver said:
This looks to me very much like an attempt to shift blame.
0 -
Add in a collapse of Lib Dem support which is perceived to be highly favourable to Labour and the position becomes even more astonishing.RichardNabavi said:If, two years ago, you had told me that UKIP would be polling 15% now, I'd have been very surprised. If you'd told me the Labour lead would be only 3%, I'd have been a little surprised.
But if you'd told me that both of these were going to be the case, I'd have thought you were out with the fairies.
Basically Labour have picked up a miniscule amount of support (at least net) from anyone else other than the 2010 Lib Dems. Given their apparent losses to UKIP (6.75% on this poll) the tories have done as well in picking up other support as Labour has.
Quite remarkable as the late, great David Coleman used to say.
0 -
Flooding isn't a certainty.felix said:
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"currystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.
0 -
anotherDave said:
The May 2013 UKIP vote was 20% of votes cast.Mick_Pork said:
Depends on which pollster you choose really.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
There was an analysis posted on here that showed the kipper vote at last May's locals translated to about 17% while the all polls average points to it being about 15%.
What you can also see if you look closely are the polls that overestimate the kipper vote as well as underestimate it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
So I doubt they'll all be wrong but there is definitely the potential for some pollsters to end up looking very silly indeed if they can't get a handle on the kipper vote by 2015.
Not so for the lib dems. Pretty hard to over or underestimate their support considering they've been flatlining on 10% since late 2010.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/06/29/final-vote-tally-from-last-months-locals-shows-ukip-in-second-place-in-seats-contested/
The National Equivalent Vote was: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22%.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-30/local-elections-2013
I think you may be thinking of the _current_ council by-elections analysis:
"Analysis by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher for The Sunday Times shows how strong UKIP has become. The professors at Plymouth University Elections Centre have recalibrated their celebrated analysis of more than 100,000 votes cast in council by-elections and now put UKIP in third place in their latest national forecast: Labour 34%, Tories 28%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dems 13%."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1370209.ece
Fair enough, though I did mention this when you last posted that analysis.
22% would mean that no pollster overestimated the kipper vote and only a scant few got that level. In which case the kipper polling is skewed even more downwards than just the failure to prompt would have suggested. The trends would still hold though and those were a sharp kipper rise starting last Feb followed by a big drop after May.
0 -
Quangos are undemocratic and should be technical, not be the playthings of former politicians.
Agreed. I think to apportion blame we need to ascertain who makes the policy decisions that have exacerbated the problems in Somerset.
0 -
Ladbrokes open betting on next EU Commisioner
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money on0 -
We're an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.taffys said:Quangos are undemocratic and should be technical, not be the playthings of former politicians.
Agreed. I think to apportion blame we need to ascertain who makes the policy decisions that have exacerbated the problems in Somerset.
Our principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. We play a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through our functions and roles.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx
0 -
TheWatcher said:
Flooding isn't a certainty.felix said:
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"currystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier might well have avoided it.
At what cost? and based on an assumption of this year's rainfall totals? for a few hundred people? Sorry but people need to get real.
0 -
Of course it's true that Labour have been trying (rather feebly) to make political capital out of this, but it's the Environment Agency which manages flood defences and looks after rivers. If there is any blame to be attached (and, like you, I'm not saying there is), then clearly the buck stops with the head of the Environment Agency. Quangocrats can't have it both ways, wanting to be free of day-to-day political interference so that they can get on with the job, but not taking responsibility for the way they carry out the job.SouthamObserver said:
Smith reports to Paterson. Paterson got a lot of flack on his visit to Somerset last week. He wasn't even wearing wellies! The finger started being pointed at Smith in, I believe, the Telegraph soon after that.0 -
DavidL said:
Add in a collapse of Lib Dem support which is perceived to be highly favourable to Labour and the position becomes even more astonishing.RichardNabavi said:If, two years ago, you had told me that UKIP would be polling 15% now, I'd have been very surprised. If you'd told me the Labour lead would be only 3%, I'd have been a little surprised.
But if you'd told me that both of these were going to be the case, I'd have thought you were out with the fairies.
Basically Labour have picked up a miniscule amount of support (at least net) from anyone else other than the 2010 Lib Dems. Given their apparent losses to UKIP (6.75% on this poll) the tories have done as well in picking up other support as Labour has.
Quite remarkable as the late, great David Coleman used to say.
Yes and it does make one wonder what will be the effect if the UKIP bubble bursts - remember the LDs after the debates.....0 -
Sky: Liddell-Grainger MP on Lord Smith "a coward, a little git... I'll flush his head down the loo..."0
-
If Ashton changes her mind and decides to stay on will Shadsy hang onto your money until 2018?MikeSmithson said:Ladbrokes open betting on next EU Commisioner
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money on0 -
Tory members choices.MikeSmithson said:Ladbrokes open betting on next EU Commisioner
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money onAnd Tory members’ choice for Britain’s next EU Commissioner is…Daniel Hannan
The hardline tory Eurosceptics could end up being very disappointed.
Daniel Hannan: 31 per cent.
John Redwood: 22 per cent.
Andrew Mitchell: 19 per cent.
Ken Clarke: 9 per cent.
Gisela Stuart: 6 per cent.
Nigel Farage: 5 per cent.
Karren Brady: 3 per cent.
Nick Clegg: 3 per cent.
Baroness Stowell: 1 per cent.
Nadine Dorries: 1 per cent.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/02/and-tory-members-choice-for-the-next-eu-commissioner-is-danhannanmep.html
They should be well used to that by now though.0 -
Are you assuming that the Tories and Labour aren't going to lose any votes to UKIP when you say "Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit."?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
Look at Thurrock 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurrock_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
All of the others go to UKIP and they have no chance by your reckoning
0 -
I have read the explanation Populus have given of their change in methodology and i'm not the wiser.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Our-Methodology/Polling/
The differences between the two methodologies [phone and online] relate to how best to secure a sample with an appropriate degree of political representativeness, which Populus regards as being crucial to replacing telephone-based voting intention polling with an online equivalent. Observing voting intention figures derived from phone and online samples over time it has become clear that simply “past vote” weighting both in similar ways does not produce sustained comparable results.
Populus has therefore sought a different way of ensuring that the political make-up of each of its online samples is more politically representative and leads to results that are more consistent with samples drawn randomly by phone. Over recent times we have noted a small but significant divergence in the post-weighted shares of the vote of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats compared with some other reputable polling companies. In light of this we have reviewed our use of a single source for deriving party identification at the last General Election and have decided to broaden the range of measures we use. The cumulative effect of these changes is to reduce slightly the number of people who identify with the Liberal Democrats and with Labour and to increase the proportion who identify with UKIP and with no party. The number identifying with the Tories remains broadly the same.0 -
You can read the actual report: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdfMick_Pork said:How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
There isn't anything that exciting about it; its thesis is that oil is expensive, there's lots of it in the sea round Scotland, if Scotland gets all the money from that oil Scotland will be rich - all on the basis of public domain information from the DTI (there is a suggestion, pp.5-6 that the DTI has been a bit incompetent in presenting the figures and the SNP a bit dim about it all, but he adopts the DTI revenue forecasts anyway).
0 -
LOLIshmael_X said:
You can read the actual report: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdfMick_Pork said:How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
There isn't anything that exciting about it
0 -
Dredging the rivers at some point in the last 15 years would have been a startcurrystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."0 -
Money where mouth is time
Lord Ashcrofts poll says UKIP are on 16% in W&SE...
Anyone want EVS that UKIP poll under 16%?
or 11/10?
or 5/4?
0 -
That could be a nice job for Salmond, post referendum.MikeSmithson said:Ladbrokes open betting on next EU Commisioner
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money on
0 -
The numbers are just made up.Lennon said:
You appear to have a turnout of 86% (61k/71k) in 2010 which appears on the high side, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
The point was, though, that any votes UKIP wins from DNV don't impact the overall result (assuming they are going to win zero seats).
The only impact they have will be if they disproportionately win votes from one party vs the other. Hence if everyone is saying UKIP is on 10% it's a disaster for the Tories they may be overstating the effect - the "real" impact is the same as if UKIP is on 7% and all the DNVs...well, don't vote.0 -
Scotland will have its own EU CommissionerTheWatcher said:
That could be a nice job for Salmond, post referendum.MikeSmithson said:Ladbrokes open betting on next EU Commisioner
2 Mitchell
4 Paterson
5 Cridland
8 Fallon
16 Clegg/Lilley/Willetts/Maude/Lansley
I'll reveal tomorrow my choice after I've got some money on
0 -
Little Ed forced them to re-appoint him by.. erm..Theuniondivvie said:
Amazing that the coalition re-appointed him in 2011.Patrick said:Smith is a perfect example of Labour's quango packing. He's an Islington lefty townie chocolate teapot.
Little Ed forced them to re-appoint him.
0 -
I somehow doubt that tory MPs in marginals would view even 7% with complete equanimity and it might just be one of the reasons they seem just a little bit excitable these days.Mick_Pork said:
Here's a clue.Charles said:Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?GetBritainOut @GetBritainOut 3h
Three cheers for Tory rebels, the real loyalists http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3996882.ece … (£)
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)0 -
Just watching the BBC News, and I'm not sure who comes across worse: Chris Smith for scowling in a Range Rover, or the reporter trying to interview him through a closed window as he walks along a flooded road.RichardNabavi said:
Of course it's true that Labour have been trying (rather feebly) to make political capital out of this, but it's the Environment Agency which manages flood defences and looks after rivers. If there is any blame to be attached (and, like you, I'm not saying there is), then clearly the buck stops with the head of the Environment Agency. Quangocrats can't have it both ways, wanting to be free of day-to-day political interference so that they can get on with the job, but not taking responsibility for the way they carry out the job.SouthamObserver said:
Smith reports to Paterson. Paterson got a lot of flack on his visit to Somerset last week. He wasn't even wearing wellies! The finger started being pointed at Smith in, I believe, the Telegraph soon after that.
Hopefully when all this dies down (and dries out) we will be able to have a sane debate on the state of our nation's flood defences.
Also hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of useless political placemen like Lord Smith, whatever their political persuasion.0 -
OK, when you have had your fill of LOLing, point us to the exciting bits.Mick_Pork said:
LOLIshmael_X said:
You can read the actual report: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdfMick_Pork said:How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
There isn't anything that exciting about it
Admittedly some of the "plus ca change" asides are quite funny: "...the SNP is already showing signs of making promises which could be an embarrassment to its economic management." Wouldn't happen now, would it?
0 -
Did you realise that Labour tried to make political capital out of the fact that Patterson wasn't using the NHS for his eye op?RichardNabavi said:
Of course it's true that Labour have been trying (rather feebly) to make political capital out of this, but it's the Environment Agency which manages flood defences and looks after rivers. If there is any blame to be attached (and, like you, I'm not saying there is), then clearly the buck stops with the head of the Environment Agency. Quangocrats can't have it both ways, wanting to be free of day-to-day political interference so that they can get on with the job, but not taking responsibility for the way they carry out the job.SouthamObserver said:
Smith reports to Paterson. Paterson got a lot of flack on his visit to Somerset last week. He wasn't even wearing wellies! The finger started being pointed at Smith in, I believe, the Telegraph soon after that.
Pretty shocking thing to do (by Labour).0 -
Right... so on the assumption that UKIP win no seats, then voters that have 'switched' to UKIP from DNV don't change anything. (Unless they would otherwise have switched to Tory, or Lab or someone else in the absence of UKIP).Charles said:
The numbers are just made up.Lennon said:
You appear to have a turnout of 86% (61k/71k) in 2010 which appears on the high side, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
The point was, though, that any votes UKIP wins from DNV don't impact the overall result (assuming they are going to win zero seats).
The only impact they have will be if they disproportionately win votes from one party vs the other. Hence if everyone is saying UKIP is on 10% it's a disaster for the Tories they may be overstating the effect - the "real" impact is the same as if UKIP is on 7% and all the DNVs...well, don't vote.0 -
I don't think UKIP are going to win any seats. Clealy if they won 15,000+ votes from the other parties plus all the DNV, then the DNV are importantisam said:
Are you assuming that the Tories and Labour aren't going to lose any votes to UKIP when you say "Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit."?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
Look at Thurrock 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurrock_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
All of the others go to UKIP and they have no chance by your reckoning
My point is that DNV don't impact the relative position of the big 3 - and it is this relative position that impacts the result, not the vote share0 -
Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
But what would "West Lothian" (there's your clue) MP Tam Dalyell know about scottish politics compared to some random right-winger on PB?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html0 -
As a boy, my mother owned a diary farm in North Somerset which had seaward fields that were below sea-level and flooded most winters. The upper part of the farm did not flood and we kept the stock there in the winter. The stock moved to the former flooded fields in the summer as the pasture was lush from all the water and did not dry out during a hot and dry summer.Charles said:
Dredging the rivers at some point in the last 15 years would have been a startcurrystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
However, the small rivers were dredged every summer and the farmers dredged the rhynes (the ditches that surrounded the fields) at the same time with the silt and water weeds being piled on the bank for the water to drain, to raise the bank and also to fertilise the field.
I used to catch sticklebacks and minnows in these rhynes and the wildlife certainly did not suffer from the dredging.
0 -
1 Conservative and 1 Labour for me.isam said:According this Im still a Labour supporter (no prompt for UKIP)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/06/what-your-tv-favourites-say-about-your-politics/
Only watch 1 Tory prog (Strickers), 3 Labour (Phoenix Nights, The Office & Frasier) and no LDs
Hawaii 5-0 and the Wire are the only 2 of all those listed that I watch.0 -
That's the point (and I would generally suggest that anyone who was uninspired by the major parties in 2010 is unlikely to be overwhelmed with enthusiasm today).Lennon said:
Right... so on the assumption that UKIP win no seats, then voters that have 'switched' to UKIP from DNV don't change anything. (Unless they would otherwise have switched to Tory, or Lab or someone else in the absence of UKIP).Charles said:
The numbers are just made up.Lennon said:
You appear to have a turnout of 86% (61k/71k) in 2010 which appears on the high side, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
The point was, though, that any votes UKIP wins from DNV don't impact the overall result (assuming they are going to win zero seats).
The only impact they have will be if they disproportionately win votes from one party vs the other. Hence if everyone is saying UKIP is on 10% it's a disaster for the Tories they may be overstating the effect - the "real" impact is the same as if UKIP is on 7% and all the DNVs...well, don't vote.
Which may mean than UKIP has a lot less impact on the result than people think.0 -
Was her surname 'Letts'?Financier said:
As a boy, my mother owned a diary farm...Charles said:
Dredging the rivers at some point in the last 15 years would have been a startcurrystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
0 -
I see where you are coming from, but I would put it the other way around. If UKIP do manage to win a seat - then having a large proportion of voters that were previously DNV may have been to their advantage, as I would argue that they are less able to be squeezed. (Vote Tory not UKIP to avoid Lab has much less potency on someone who would otherwise not vote)Charles said:
That's the point (and I would generally suggest that anyone who was uninspired by the major parties in 2010 is unlikely to be overwhelmed with enthusiasm today).Lennon said:
Right... so on the assumption that UKIP win no seats, then voters that have 'switched' to UKIP from DNV don't change anything. (Unless they would otherwise have switched to Tory, or Lab or someone else in the absence of UKIP).Charles said:
The numbers are just made up.Lennon said:
You appear to have a turnout of 86% (61k/71k) in 2010 which appears on the high side, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?Charles said:
From a polling percentage perspective the DNV is clearly a risk.Hugh said:Pollsters are struggling with UKIP's rise. Understandably because of their low vote last time, with a lot of support coming from Did Not Vote.
I wonder whether there will be some egg on pollsters faces after the next election, perhaps even a mid 90s style post mortem.
However, from a seats perspective, I am struggling to see why it matters. To put this in perspective, let's assume a Tory/Labour marginal (*actual votes* in 2010):
Tory 25,000
Labour 23,000
LD 10,000
Other 2,000
DNV 10,000
Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?
The point was, though, that any votes UKIP wins from DNV don't impact the overall result (assuming they are going to win zero seats).
The only impact they have will be if they disproportionately win votes from one party vs the other. Hence if everyone is saying UKIP is on 10% it's a disaster for the Tories they may be overstating the effect - the "real" impact is the same as if UKIP is on 7% and all the DNVs...well, don't vote.
Which may mean than UKIP has a lot less impact on the result than people think.
0 -
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).Charles said:
I somehow doubt that tory MPs in marginals would view even 7% with complete equanimity and it might just be one of the reasons they seem just a little bit excitable these days.Mick_Pork said:
Here's a clue.Charles said:Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?GetBritainOut @GetBritainOut 3h
Three cheers for Tory rebels, the real loyalists http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3996882.ece … (£)
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Under 5% and far closer to their 2010 3.1% Of which I see no sign whatsoever yet.
Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.0 -
But what would "West Lothian" (there's your clue) MP Tam Dalyell know about scottish politics compared to some random right-winger on PB?Mick_Pork said:Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
Oh, is West Lothian in Scotland? I never understood what that WLQ stuff was all about.
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974. Executive summary of report: "SNP miss open goal a mile wide". Dalyell may be right that had they not done so things might have been different, but so what? If my aunt was a wagon she'd have wheels. I just don't see any interest this has in 2014.0 -
Translation: Our LD and UKIP figures are consistently out of line with the other major pollsters. This has made us worry that our methodology might not be correct. Therefore we have adjusted our weighting figures to bring ourselves more in line with everyone else.Millsy said:I have read the explanation Populus have given of their change in methodology and i'm not the wiser.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Our-Methodology/Polling/
The differences between the two methodologies [phone and online] relate to how best to secure a sample with an appropriate degree of political representativeness, which Populus regards as being crucial to replacing telephone-based voting intention polling with an online equivalent. Observing voting intention figures derived from phone and online samples over time it has become clear that simply “past vote” weighting both in similar ways does not produce sustained comparable results.
Populus has therefore sought a different way of ensuring that the political make-up of each of its online samples is more politically representative and leads to results that are more consistent with samples drawn randomly by phone. Over recent times we have noted a small but significant divergence in the post-weighted shares of the vote of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats compared with some other reputable polling companies. In light of this we have reviewed our use of a single source for deriving party identification at the last General Election and have decided to broaden the range of measures we use. The cumulative effect of these changes is to reduce slightly the number of people who identify with the Liberal Democrats and with Labour and to increase the proportion who identify with UKIP and with no party. The number identifying with the Tories remains broadly the same.0 -
FWIW the interview with me on Sky was about this (I don't think Sky has the news broadcast live - current Sky News is all about flooding):
http://news.sky.com/story/1208189/animal-testing-plan-branded-a-whitewash0 -
The scale of dredging and pumping required to have stopped any flooding would be wholly impractical but a greater effort would have had some impact at the margins, and would presumably have helped some properties, businesses and so on. It would also have made it easier for those in charge to have blamed the elements if they had more meaningful action to back that claim up with.TheWatcher said:
Flooding isn't a certainty.felix said:
I wholeheartedly agree - when you live virtually below sea level and get a 3 month sustained deluge you're gonna get flooded - s** all to do with Chris Smith or anyone else - it's just another bit of the 'entitlement culture' - " I've been an idiot and gimme gimme gimme!"currystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
Dredging and installing additional pumping earlier may well have stopped it happening.0 -
Which political party would you say you have usually most closely identified yourself with?
As I've said before the problem is less with what numbers they use then with the faulty assumption that people's answer to this question will be invariant.
I know that getting a politically balanced sample is difficult, but if any party sees a large surge in support you will also see people change the way they answer this question. The pollsters need to use other questions that change less rapidly, and are easier for people to answer honestly: housing tenure, public transport usage, employment status, maybe even preferred type of alcohol - anything that is broadly correlated with political affiliation without directly asking for it.0 -
But that's just equivalent to saying the DNV is UKIP's core vote so resistant to squeezing. It may help them in 2020, but not likely to be particularly important in 2015, surely?Lennon said:
I see where you are coming from, but I would put it the other way around. If UKIP do manage to win a seat - then having a large proportion of voters that were previously DNV may have been to their advantage, as I would argue that they are less able to be squeezed. (Vote Tory not UKIP to avoid Lab has much less potency on someone who would otherwise not vote)0 -
Oh, is West Lothian in Scotland? I never understood what that WLQ stuff was all about.Ishmael_X said:
But what would "West Lothian" (there's your clue) MP Tam Dalyell know about scottish politics compared to some random right-winger on PB?Mick_Pork said:Tam Dalyell, who served as Labour MP in West Lothian for 43 years, agrees that the document could have led to independence. "In my view it might have done," he said. "It could have tipped the balance it a number of seats including mine. Oil was very much a totemic issue. It was new and it was dramatic. Politics at that time was very different. In 1974 my majority went from around 6,000 in February to around 2,000 after the October general election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html
There is nothing in the report that a competent economics A Level student could not have written in 1974. Executive summary of report: "SNP miss open goal a mile wide". Dalyell may be right that had they not done so things might have been different, but so what? If my aunt was a wagon she'd have wheels. I just don't see any interest this has in 2014.
The point was that the document was suppressed, and not published, at the time ... so it is not so much that the goalposts were missed as the SNP and the public didn't even know they existed.
0 -
No, it was not, but her maiden name was Bull. The farm was managed for us as my father worked in Bristol and commuted each day by train.TheWatcher said:
Was her surname 'Letts'?Financier said:
As a boy, my mother owned a diary farm...Charles said:
Dredging the rivers at some point in the last 15 years would have been a startcurrystar said:
Seriously how are the results of this extraordinary weather anyone's fault. I think given the amount of rain that has fallen I find it surprising that there is not much more flooding. The Somerset levels has a small number of properties that are flooded. Its very sad but the area is below sea level and has had an unbelievable amount of rain.. Why do you suggest could have been done differently?SouthamObserver said:
And that's why governments just love quangos. There is always someone else to blame! It's noticeable the anti-Smith stories first appeared in Tory-friendly papers.antifrank said:An observant tweet from Patrick Wintour
"Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
0 -
Under 5% and far closer to their 2010 3.1% Of which I see no sign whatsoever yet.Mick_Pork said:
I accept that second order effects are influenced (I flagged momentum, but obviously there are others as well).Charles said:
I somehow doubt that tory MPs in marginals would view even 7% with complete equanimity and it might just be one of the reasons they seem just a little bit excitable these days.Mick_Pork said:
Here's a clue.Charles said:Surely, even if all of the DNV move to UKIP, then it does not impact the result one bit.
Hence, for those trying to think about the impact of the UKIP vote on seats lost by the Tories, shouldn't you be basing your calculation on c. 70% of the poll score anyway? i.e. if they are polling 10% then the "impactful score" (ugly term) is only 7% - much closer to Cameron's target of 5%.
What am I missing (apart from the momentum argument)?GetBritainOut @GetBritainOut 3h
Three cheers for Tory rebels, the real loyalists http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3996882.ece … (£)
The point is, though, that the squeeze job the Tories have to do is from 7% -> 5% not from 10% -> 5% and presumably this will be easier to achieve (this may also address RN's confusion re the disconnect between UKIP's apparent share and the narrowness of Labour's lead)
Sure, we have proof that the tory kipper vote is to an extent mirroring each other. There are soft tory kipper waverers who can come back to the fold which is why the kipper vote can indeed fall markedly after a set of elections like last May. That's not the question. The question is by how much it needs to fall after May going in to an actual election campaign.
If it rises for May and then falls back to where it is now by next Feb then there will be panic on a scale from some tory MPs that makes all that has gone before seem trivial.
8-10% is not an unreasonable estimate. If we don't see a HARD kipper crash after May ( I mean a real and very substantial drop) I'd be more inclined to put it at the upper 10% level.
My guess is more like 7-8%: I tend to be doubtful as to whether DNV's will vote. But probably only 5-6% of that will come from previous voters, of which half will be from UKIP10 and some from other minor parties. So let's say there is a total of 3% from the big 2(and perhaps, for the sake of argument, 2% from the Tories and 1% from Labour)
How many additional seats would Labour win if there was a relatively 1% shift in their favour?0 -
Additional translation : As we are an online poll we are moving our figures closer to the other online pollsters and further away from the telephone pollsters and we are keeping everything crossed that the telephone pollsters are not proved right and online polling wrong .Garethofthevale said:
Translation: Our LD and UKIP figures are consistently out of line with the other major pollsters. This has made us worry that our methodology might not be correct. Therefore we have adjusted our weighting figures to bring ourselves more in line with everyone else.Millsy said:I have read the explanation Populus have given of their change in methodology and i'm not the wiser.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Our-Methodology/Polling/
The differences between the two methodologies [phone and online] relate to how best to secure a sample with an appropriate degree of political representativeness, which Populus regards as being crucial to replacing telephone-based voting intention polling with an online equivalent. Observing voting intention figures derived from phone and online samples over time it has become clear that simply “past vote” weighting both in similar ways does not produce sustained comparable results.
Populus has therefore sought a different way of ensuring that the political make-up of each of its online samples is more politically representative and leads to results that are more consistent with samples drawn randomly by phone. Over recent times we have noted a small but significant divergence in the post-weighted shares of the vote of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats compared with some other reputable polling companies. In light of this we have reviewed our use of a single source for deriving party identification at the last General Election and have decided to broaden the range of measures we use. The cumulative effect of these changes is to reduce slightly the number of people who identify with the Liberal Democrats and with Labour and to increase the proportion who identify with UKIP and with no party. The number identifying with the Tories remains broadly the same.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
