politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov appears to have changed the way it deals with Ukip a
Options
Comments
-
Actually, I can't think of a better way to choose a party than WAVE accessibility. Please god don't let the 'Green Party' have the best website...JosiasJessop said:
Yep, I didn't notice in my quick test; silly of me. Splash pages are the work of the devil. Their real page scores 5 errors, 48 alerts.DaemonBarber said:
I assume the libdems.org.uk splash page accounts for the low numbers there...JosiasJessop said:
I put a couple of these through the WAVE Website Accessibility Tool, to check how well they've been designed for access by the disabled (e.g. the blind) who use reader tools.anotherDave said:Just took a little tour of political party websites. I think Labour have the best design.
http://www.conservatives.com
http://www.greenparty.org.uk
http://www.labour.org.uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk
http://www.english.plaidcymru.org
http://www.snp.org
http://www.ukip.org
E.g. for the Conservatives: http://wave.webaim.org/report#/http://www.conservatives.com/
Conservatives: 0 errors, 26 alerts
Labour: 7 errors, 16 alerts
LibDems: 2 errors, 1 alert (although their front page is very simple)
UKIP: 22 errors, 51 alerts
As an example, my own website front page gets 2 errors and 6 alerts, and the BBC News front page 2 errors, 51 alerts.
You have to be very careful with these figures, as the online tools isn't the best, and it can depend on the accessibility tool the disabled person is using.
But generally the results are not too bad, and certainly better than some websites I have seen.
And the SNP page: 5 errors, 17 alerts.
Greens: 4 errors, 14 alerts
English PC: 8 errors, 81 alerts.
So far the Conservatives are winning hands-down *if* you trust the analyser. Other usability issues may abound, however.0 -
More bad news for QPR.
Loic Remy arrested on suspicion of rape0 -
Yes indeedy !!TheScreamingEagles said:
Thank you.JackW said:
The figures I've just quoted below are from last week. I hope to issue a fortnighty ARSE and according there will be a further outpouring early next week.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think we need an ARSE poll to confirm if this Mori and ICM are outliers.JackW said:Have I noted this before :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
Will your ARSE be carrying polling on Caledonian independence as well?
0 -
You mean "even more people" ?TheScreamingEagles said:So my next stint as guest editor coincides with people wondering if Ed is Crap.
Excellent timing.0 -
For those of us who believe it is the economy stupid
As with the YouGov/Sunday Times figures for the last few week’s, MORI’s figures also show an increase in economic optimism… or at least, a decrease in pessimism. 30% now expect the economy to improve in the next year, 31% to get worse – a net “feel good factor” of minus 1. This is up from minus 19 a month ago, and the highest since July 2010.0 -
sleazy labour on the slide..LOL0
-
I see Twitter is full of Lefties saying "But But, YouGov gives us 10pts lead..."
That even this metric is a dismal blue blanket is lost on them. I hope they keep it up...0 -
New Thread0
-
JohnO said:
No need. I was already chuckling. tim seems a bit subdued, can't think why.SquareRoot said:3 per cent... John O should be told..
He's awaiting his latest orders from High Command.
Stand by for a barrage of 'Red Faces', 'Incompetent Fops' and 'Lynton Crosby'.
0 -
@tim - you may be 'fine' but certainly looking a bit of a fool, but I suppose that's par for the course for an incessant attack-gerbil.
No bets. Remember, mid term polls and leadership ratings are amusing and have some interest as snapshots e.g. will the Tories have suffered from the Euro nonsense in a week or so time when the dust settles.0 -
Isn't the fundamental problem with this that the people of Europe don't consider themselves a people? The solution is to have power and sovereignty at the level that think of as "us" rather than "them". i.e. to reverse the EU's political integration.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that increased democracy in the European parliament - i.e. actually giving them a role rather than merely copious expense accounts - is that it takes a way from the sovereignty of individual member states. We therefore have an unaccountable Europe, where the decisions are made opaquely and indirectly. Increasing European-level democracy would have the effect of making decision making more open (and address the Farage criticism), but would - at the same time - really be taking us down the route to a European super-state.david_herdson said:
That's only true to a point. Countries which operate closed list systems, whether regionally or nationally, give almost no control to their electorates in respect of the top-named x candidates in the more popular parties. Those MEPs are accountable only to their parties.edmundintokyo said:
They're not unaccountable, they're directly elected and can be directly unelected.Neil said:
Who on earth thought it was a good idea to give more powers to such an unaccountable mob?edmundintokyo said:
The EU Parliament is getting frisky, isn't it?
Also, cutting things like slow-to-spend cohesion funds is an objectively stupid idea. Europe needs bigger fiscal transfers, and rolling over unspent money to the next year makes for better incentives than cancelling it.
It's one reason why a really useful change to the way the EU operates would be single-member constituencies for the parliament (another being to select the Commission from the parliament and to make it directly accountable there). There needs to be a change to the whole Brussels mindset and greatly increasing democratic pressure would go no small way in that direction. At the moment, the pressure is only coming from a few national governments.
So it's a bit of a quandary all round.0 -
The "certainty to vote" filter may be crucial - perhaps those arguing that potential Labour supporters need more of a positive reason to vote (beyond just pointing to the coalition and calling it incompetent) are correct.0
-
To be fair, that was the reason MEPs objected to the supposed budget cut - they said it was grandstanding since it made no sense to cut spending without deciding to cut any specific programmes, and it would thus put the Commission in an impossible position. Seems Ministers - including Britain - have now said, "Er, yes, OK, we don't actually want to cut any programmes, so here's some more dosh."Richard_Tyndall said:
My understanding is that this is nothing to do with Croatia. Basically they agreed to cut the amount of money they take for the budget but not the spending that money is spent on.edmundintokyo said:
OMFG British reporting of the EU is useless. They have a "triumph" frame and a "surrender" frame, but no "tell you what's actually going on" frame.RichardNabavi said:
Are you sure that is right? The BBC article is virtually incomprehensible, but as far as I can tell what it means is that they have agreed on the 3.3% budget cut for the next few years, but there's a one-off payment to cover already-incurred unpaid bills.Socrates said:I'm amazed no one else has picked this up. It now looks like there won't be a cut in the EU budget.
I have to say the media reporting on this has been abysmally unclear.
Is this the additional money because Croatia joined, or is it a different thing?
The top up is to make up the difference
There does not appear to be any reason why they can't carry on doing this every year. That said I am not sure of the fine print so there may well be some limit on how often they can do it but certainly they appear to have plans to do the same next year and the year after.
But I'm trying to make sense of it through the foggy filter laughingly known as our media reporting of European affairs, and this might be wrong...
0 -
Sure, but that's also true of safe seats under FPTP.david_herdson said:
That's only true to a point. Countries which operate closed list systems, whether regionally or nationally, give almost no control to their electorates in respect of the top-named x candidates in the more popular parties. Those MEPs are accountable only to their parties.edmundintokyo said:
They're not unaccountable, they're directly elected and can be directly unelected.Neil said:
Who on earth thought it was a good idea to give more powers to such an unaccountable mob?edmundintokyo said:
The EU Parliament is getting frisky, isn't it?
Also, cutting things like slow-to-spend cohesion funds is an objectively stupid idea. Europe needs bigger fiscal transfers, and rolling over unspent money to the next year makes for better incentives than cancelling it.
Open lists or STV would do the same job equally well, although like I say it wouldn't make much difference in practice. People don't have enough information to hold individual members of parliament accountable. They mostly go by the party brand, which is probably the right thing for them to do.david_herdson said:It's one reason why a really useful change to the way the EU operates would be single-member constituencies for the parliament
david_herdson said:
(another being to select the Commission from the parliament and to make it directly accountable there).david_herdson said:There needs to be a change to the whole Brussels mindset and greatly increasing democratic pressure would go no small way in that direction. At the moment, the pressure is only coming from a few national governments.
Disagree, it's coming from the parliament. There's very little pressure for (more direct) democracy coming from the member states. They want to hold onto their own power, and they're not in any particular hurry to make themselves more accountable.0 -
If David Cameron wanted to leave the EU, he could come back from a European summit and say "We have worked hard to reverse political integration, but they are simply not interested. It is time for the people to have their say on whether we want to continue political union or go back to a free trade agreement". I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the Conservative party would swing behind him, and there'd be enough referendum believers in the other party to get a vote. Then I'm sure he could get the public to vote to leave.david_herdson said:
Cameron couldn't lead a policy decision to leave the EU even if he wanted to because he as PM has to work within the constraints of parliament and there's no majority support for that there.Socrates said:
Would it be worse? If the original deal had cut it by 3 billion a year rather than 4.5 billion, the Parliament would have negotiated for an extra 6 billion rather than 7.5 billion. The EU decides what to do first and then gets the money to cover it later.RichardNabavi said:
He did achieve a significant victory, in that the medium-term budget increase was vetoed (to be fair, with support from Germany and others). In other words, it would be a lot worse without the pressure he applied. He can only work within the structure Blair and Brown foolishly agreed to.Richard_Tyndall said:It may well have been but it was the idiot who is in No 10 now who tried to pretend that he was securing some kind of great victory in controlling the EU budget when he must have already known it was nothing of the sort.
I'm also sceptical of the "unpaid bills" explanation. The Council's press release says it is for "measures to support economic growth, create jobs and tackle unemployment, especially amount youth people.":
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/137116.pdf
Even if it is for unpaid bills, they can just run over every year.
Also, it's not true that Cameron can only work within the Blair-Brown structure. We can leave the EU and sign a new trade agreement and not have to operate within EU rigged structures at all.
It's true that 'the government' could in theory propose such a policy but not now in practice.0 -
I think you've put your finger on the key question there.edmundintokyo said:will make it harder for Ed Miliband to hold whatever the line is that he's trying to hold.
0 -
I just believe in the rule of law. It's central to my British identity. We have agreed to change the rules of the club that this stuff should happen by QMV. As the rules of the club are never going to change on this, the only gentlemanly way to go back on it is to hand in our resignation. Preferably saying "no offence, old boy" while we do it.rcs1000 said:
Irrespective of whether the right thing is to leave the EU or not, clearly the current situation is not what we agreed to. Sometimes I wonder if your BOOism means you would rather we handed over more money now, so as to (possibly) increase the chance we leave in two years time?Socrates said:@rcs1000
Tempting though that strategy is, we're not dodgy, feckles Italians. Upstanding Britons stand by our word and the rule of law and we should abide by our existing obligations. The solution isn't to disobey the treaties. It's to pull out of the treaties.
My view is that "sticking by our word" would be handing over exactly what was agreed. And I would have thought the 'Northern' block (the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland) would be very much on our side with this. The Southerners (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece) might also relish a reduction in contributions.
So come on Cameron - pick up the phone, get some allies, and then announce you're paying the agreed amount and not a centime more.0 -
This feels correct.Pulpstar said:We're into a new paradigm of polling now I feel, doubt we will see 40% from anyone again this year at least.
I was looking on wiki a while ago at election shares for the 1970s. I was amazed to find that Callaghan lost in 1979 with a share of the vote - 37% - that exceeded the amount Blair won with in 2005. 37% today would nail on a Labour victory.
It's a sobering thought that the last time any party got better than 40% at an actual GE was 12 years ago.0 -
It is a rather good column, and a somewhat uneasy read.antifrank said:@SeanT I find your column very uncomfortable. I'm not sure how I should react to the points that you make, particularly your final point, and I get the impression that you aren't either.
This means that it is an exceptionally good column.
It's why I admire so many writers and columnists, even if I do not agree with them - their use of language is often superb, especially given the fact they are often writing to a word count.
I think my posts prove that I never write to a word count. ;-)0 -
Unfortunately we are bound by treaty agreements. It is they which dictate how we have to behave with regard to the EU and as long as the EU abides by those agreements - loopholes and all - there is not a lot we can do.rcs1000 said:
Irrespective of whether the right thing is to leave the EU or not, clearly the current situation is not what we agreed to. Sometimes I wonder if your BOOism means you would rather we handed over more money now, so as to (possibly) increase the chance we leave in two years time?Socrates said:@rcs1000
Tempting though that strategy is, we're not dodgy, feckles Italians. Upstanding Britons stand by our word and the rule of law and we should abide by our existing obligations. The solution isn't to disobey the treaties. It's to pull out of the treaties.
My view is that "sticking by our word" would be handing over exactly what was agreed. And I would have thought the 'Northern' block (the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland) would be very much on our side with this. The Southerners (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece) might also relish a reduction in contributions.
So come on Cameron - pick up the phone, get some allies, and then announce you're paying the agreed amount and not a centime more.
Actually to correct that, there are things we can do but they all lead towards the exit and Cameron simply will not countenance those things. He would rather blame the last government for everything whilst trying to maintain the fiction that he can change the EU.
Having just watched the new Star Trek last night my response would match that of Spock.
He is being most Illogical0 -
Agree 100%. One cannot join a club, agree the rules and then decide unilaterally not to abide by them.Socrates said:
I just believe in the rule of law. It's central to my British identity. We have agreed to change the rules of the club that this stuff should happen by QMV. As the rules of the club are never going to change on this, the only gentlemanly way to go back on it is to hand in our resignation. Preferably saying "no offence, old boy" while we do it.rcs1000 said:
Irrespective of whether the right thing is to leave the EU or not, clearly the current situation is not what we agreed to. Sometimes I wonder if your BOOism means you would rather we handed over more money now, so as to (possibly) increase the chance we leave in two years time?Socrates said:@rcs1000
Tempting though that strategy is, we're not dodgy, feckles Italians. Upstanding Britons stand by our word and the rule of law and we should abide by our existing obligations. The solution isn't to disobey the treaties. It's to pull out of the treaties.
My view is that "sticking by our word" would be handing over exactly what was agreed. And I would have thought the 'Northern' block (the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland) would be very much on our side with this. The Southerners (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece) might also relish a reduction in contributions.
So come on Cameron - pick up the phone, get some allies, and then announce you're paying the agreed amount and not a centime more.
Its just not Cricket. (Seriously)0 -
I actually voted green at the local elections. Mrs J was rather surprised...rcs1000 said:
Actually, I can't think of a better way to choose a party than WAVE accessibility. Please god don't let the 'Green Party' have the best website...JosiasJessop said:
Yep, I didn't notice in my quick test; silly of me. Splash pages are the work of the devil. Their real page scores 5 errors, 48 alerts.DaemonBarber said:
I assume the libdems.org.uk splash page accounts for the low numbers there...JosiasJessop said:
I put a couple of these through the WAVE Website Accessibility Tool, to check how well they've been designed for access by the disabled (e.g. the blind) who use reader tools.anotherDave said:Just took a little tour of political party websites. I think Labour have the best design.
http://www.conservatives.com
http://www.greenparty.org.uk
http://www.labour.org.uk
http://www.libdems.org.uk
http://www.english.plaidcymru.org
http://www.snp.org
http://www.ukip.org
E.g. for the Conservatives: http://wave.webaim.org/report#/http://www.conservatives.com/
Conservatives: 0 errors, 26 alerts
Labour: 7 errors, 16 alerts
LibDems: 2 errors, 1 alert (although their front page is very simple)
UKIP: 22 errors, 51 alerts
As an example, my own website front page gets 2 errors and 6 alerts, and the BBC News front page 2 errors, 51 alerts.
You have to be very careful with these figures, as the online tools isn't the best, and it can depend on the accessibility tool the disabled person is using.
But generally the results are not too bad, and certainly better than some websites I have seen.
And the SNP page: 5 errors, 17 alerts.
Greens: 4 errors, 14 alerts
English PC: 8 errors, 81 alerts.
So far the Conservatives are winning hands-down *if* you trust the analyser. Other usability issues may abound, however.0 -
These Ipsos-MORI figures only include those certain to vote (chortle!) so must hide an awful lot of dont knows.RichardNabavi said:A word of caution: Ipsos-MORI does tend to produce rather volatile figures, for reasons I've never quite understood (it might be their certainty-to-vote filter).
0 -
Typically the French just ignore EU rules with which they do not wish to comply. At the same time, they ignore/do not pay fines imposed by the EU (e.g. the fine for restricting the importation of British beef when it has been cleared as fit for human consumption). The EU just does nothing - so if those club rules are the accepted ones - why not adopt them?Richard_Tyndall said:
Agree 100%. One cannot join a club, agree the rules and then decide unilaterally not to abide by them.Socrates said:
I just believe in the rule of law. It's central to my British identity. We have agreed to change the rules of the club that this stuff should happen by QMV. As the rules of the club are never going to change on this, the only gentlemanly way to go back on it is to hand in our resignation. Preferably saying "no offence, old boy" while we do it.rcs1000 said:
Irrespective of whether the right thing is to leave the EU or not, clearly the current situation is not what we agreed to. Sometimes I wonder if your BOOism means you would rather we handed over more money now, so as to (possibly) increase the chance we leave in two years time?Socrates said:@rcs1000
Tempting though that strategy is, we're not dodgy, feckles Italians. Upstanding Britons stand by our word and the rule of law and we should abide by our existing obligations. The solution isn't to disobey the treaties. It's to pull out of the treaties.
My view is that "sticking by our word" would be handing over exactly what was agreed. And I would have thought the 'Northern' block (the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland) would be very much on our side with this. The Southerners (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece) might also relish a reduction in contributions.
So come on Cameron - pick up the phone, get some allies, and then announce you're paying the agreed amount and not a centime more.
Its just not Cricket. (Seriously)
0 -
To be fair, I saw this reported a while back. So it has been - even if not widely publicised.Socrates said:This is an incredible bit from SeanT's column:
"Why did Afzal [head of the North West prosecution service] succeed where others feared to tread? Afzal himself says: "My Pakistani heritage helped cut through barriers within the black and minority ethnic communities, And white professionals' oversensitivity to political correctness and fear of appearing racist may well have contributed to justice being stalled.”"
The actual head of the authority in charge of getting these convictions has says its down to oversensitivity to political correctness. How on Earth does this not get reported by the mainstream media?
And over-sensitivity was not the only reason. On Newsnight last night Keir Starmer was very good at explaining how prosecutors assessed the evidential value of the victims and came up with the conclusion that they would be poor witnesses hence no point prosecuting rather than seeing them as abused children and looking at the wider picture.
We have a tendency to forget that 12-13-14-year olds are children. All the more so when they are abandoned in "care".
0
This discussion has been closed.