politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beware the over-prompting of Mark Reckless and UKIP in Roch
Much has been written in recent months about prompting in voting intention polls. UKIP has argued strongly that it should be treated on the same basis as the traditional three main parties and that those polls that don’t do this are understating its position.
Comments
-
First!0
-
Wishful thinking. I know one or two libdems and they are either in denial or suddenly they have lost interest in politics and don't want to talk about it - especially anything to do with UKIP.0
-
What an interesting thread.
I still think Reckless will win, but this is a pretty poor piece of voter prompting.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood and Middleton. I'm looking for a performance within 3% this time out or I will continue to hold his polls at arms length.0 -
OGH raises a good point - UKIP complains long and loud about what they view as unfair (lack of) prompting - surely as a "different kind of party" (sic) they should be open to acknowledgement when it is skewed in their favour?0
-
So Ed has decided what the UK needs is more Ed.0
-
"For real change vote for the guy you voted for last time" ?0
-
I'm sure Lord A will be re-evaluating his life's work on that bombshell news.audreyanne said:What an interesting thread.
I still think Reckless will win, but this is a pretty poor piece of voter prompting.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood and Middleton. I'm looking for a performance within 3% this time out or I will continue to hold his polls at arms length.0 -
Just looking at the 4 Nov Panelbase Scotland poll. It included an EU referendum question.
Men would vote to leave the EU, women would vote to stay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland0 -
Scots fighting over who wears the skirt at home.anotherDave said:Just looking at the 4 Nov Panelbase Scotland poll. It included an EU referendum question.
Men would vote to leave the EU, women would vote to stay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland0 -
Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
False recall.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
Oh he's under scrutiny alright:Alanbrooke said:
I'm sure Lord A will be re-evaluating his life's work on that bombshell news.audreyanne said:What an interesting thread.
I still think Reckless will win, but this is a pretty poor piece of voter prompting.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood and Middleton. I'm looking for a performance within 3% this time out or I will continue to hold his polls at arms length.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/10/ashcroft-polls-margin-of-error-was-17/
He issued a rather plaintive defence of his waywardness, which didn't really address the issue:
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/10/lord-ashcroft-the-by-election-that-shows-why-polls-are-not-predictions.html
At the moment he is half-way between a proper polling organisation and voodoo pollster.0 -
It's all in the wording. If you were to ask "Do you support discrimination against men/White people in order to achieve equal representation" you'd get big majorities against. When people are polled on specifics, like all-women shortlists, or quotas for women or ethnic minorities, you get majorities against.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
@simonsketch: "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger."Ed Miliband declares war on his party.Alanbrooke said:So Ed has decided what the UK needs is more Ed.
@simonsketch: Ed will say we are a "deeply unequal, deeply unfair, deeply unjust country". Why does he say he loves Britain, he doesn't like us at all!
@simonsketch: And if we're so unfair, unequal and unjust, why are the poor of Europe flocking here in their millions to work?
I can't see any problems at all with this strategy. We want more Ed. All Ed, all the time...0 -
Reckless will win quite easily. Polling is clear on that point.CarlottaVance said:OGH raises a good point - UKIP complains long and loud about what they view as unfair (lack of) prompting - surely as a "different kind of party" (sic) they should be open to acknowledgement when it is skewed in their favour?
0 -
I'd be very surprised if it was false recall for something like that. How you voted last time maybe, but first having sex? That's a big and lasting memory.audreyanne said:
False recall.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even after all these years I vividly remember having to surreptitiously look at the letters on the kitchen table the next morning to find out what her name was and the address of the house.0 -
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
0 -
In Heywood & Middleton I suspect there was not a UKIP-favourable prompt and the "17% out" was in under-estimating UKIP's level of support, not over-estimating.audreyanne said:What an interesting thread.
I still think Reckless will win, but this is a pretty poor piece of voter prompting.
Lord Ashcroft was 17% out at Heywood and Middleton. I'm looking for a performance within 3% this time out or I will continue to hold his polls at arms length.
The most important setence from the thread header is:It should be noted that similar question formats were used for Clacton and the polls were broadly in the right area.
Maybe there are so many implicit biases in the polling that one has to ask a biased question in order to reach an accurate response?0 -
Why do UKIP voters have false recall and not anyone else?audreyanne said:
False recall.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
Probably. But he may lose in 2015.Sean_F said:
Reckless will win quite easily. Polling is clear on that point.CarlottaVance said:OGH raises a good point - UKIP complains long and loud about what they view as unfair (lack of) prompting - surely as a "different kind of party" (sic) they should be open to acknowledgement when it is skewed in their favour?
0 -
Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him0 -
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)0 -
Obviously life was better in the 50’s.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
(My recall for that era says no it wasn’t as easy as it appears to be now. Anecdotes available if required!?0 -
BBC - "Miliband: I can absolutely be PM"
An unfortunate choice of photo by the Beeb– looks like someone stole his banana...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
0 -
So, you've identified one issue on which UKIP supporters hold a different point of view. On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
0 -
I'm interested to see how accurate Lord A and Survation are this time.
In previous Tory held by elections, Ashcroft has been nearer to the mark than Survation.
I think, like most, I expect UKIP to win reasonably well in Rochester but I wouldn't be greatly surprised to see a lead a fair bit smaller than the polls suggest.
The winning party in the last three by-elections has under-performed the pre-election polls.
0 -
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?0 -
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
0 -
Good spot by Mike. A "closer than expected" result seems pretty likely.0
-
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....
0 -
There's also the question of whether voters know what it actually means.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
I suspect if you explained to voters that "positive" discrimination involves actively (and negatively) discriminating against others that don't share the same gender or racial characteristics, often through the use of quotas, then you'd probably get a very different response.
Quite a few respondents may think it simply means giving fair and due consideration to underrepresented groups, with mentoring and support, to assist them in fully participating in the employment marketplace.
0 -
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
0 -
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?0 -
Miliband: I can absolutely be PM: can some one remind me how Labour help wealth creation, & how many entrepreneurs rather than rent seekers are found in its ranks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30025957
This Is What Happens When Little Boys Believe That They Can Do Absolutely Anything...0 -
Good morning Sean.Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
What's your latest projection for Ukip vote share and seat number at the general election?
0 -
I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.0 -
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?Indigo said:
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!0 -
What time is Ed's "Britain is crap because it hates me" speech ?0
-
Because they are increasingly the party of working class men, who definitely fit that demographic, the shire Tory men are also likely to be shy about answering the question, where as the working class men are more likely to boast of it.CarlottaVance said:
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?Indigo said:
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!
0 -
Not sure about that.CarlottaVance said:
Probably. But he may lose in 2015.Sean_F said:
Reckless will win quite easily. Polling is clear on that point.CarlottaVance said:OGH raises a good point - UKIP complains long and loud about what they view as unfair (lack of) prompting - surely as a "different kind of party" (sic) they should be open to acknowledgement when it is skewed in their favour?
The UKIP plan is to get elected and then work the constituency like the LibDems. This has worked for Simon Hughes in Bermondsey, for instance. This will be UKIP's chance to put it into action.
The only caveat I have is that Reckless' voters do not fill the usual UKIP profile, the reason I normally give for the vote not "going home" at the GE.0 -
O/T - There's a long way to go until May 2015, not least of all Rochester, but I suspect Conservatives can't believe their luck over the last month. Miliband first took aim at Downing Street, and then shot himself in both feet. He was heavily criticised, but totally failed to recover from it. Then Labour engaged in a batch of infighting and, stoked by constant criticism and sniping in the press, the story has refused to die.
If it weren't for UKIP, it's not far off the best of all worlds for the Conservatives: Labour do all the hard work to undermine what little credibility their leader has left, meanwhile making their party look divided, but do precisely nothing about it.
Miliband stays: terminally damaged, with an apathetic shadow cabinet and a highly demoralised party.
Cameron hasn't lifted a finger.0 -
I can't post links right now, but recent Yougov polls had 2:1 majorities against all-women shortlists, and against boardroom quotas for women. So, yes, when you ask specific questions, you tend to find opposition to such measures.Casino_Royale said:
There's also the question of whether voters know what it actually means.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
I suspect if you explained to voters that "positive" discrimination involves actively (and negatively) discriminating against others that don't share the same gender or racial characteristics, often through the use of quotas, then you'd probably get a very different response.
Quite a few respondents may think it simply means giving fair and due consideration to underrepresented groups, with mentoring and support, to assist them in fully participating in the employment marketplace.
0 -
But Survation don't prompt at all in their by-election polls and their last poll had Ukip with an even higher share
Edit: just looked at the Survation/Unite poll and that mentions Mark Reckless in the second question0 -
But these "right wing voters" were much more relaxed about gender based positve discrimination:Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
Net support:
Lab: +39
UKIP: +9
LibD: +8
Con: +2
It's only when you get to ethnic minorities and gays that they discover their "social conservatism".......0 -
I think this is the "sending a message when its not an important vote" narrative, which personally I think is getting rather old. People have caught on by now that politicians just think its voters trying to send a message, and generally speaking ignore by-election upsets because changing anything doesn't fit in with their narrative. I think people are increasingly inclined to vote differently in a real election to send the sort of message which is hard to ignore, thinking they might put up with a bit of Ed, if it means Dave and his liberals firmly get the boot and the David Davis tendency gets a go instead.DavidL said:The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
0 -
Jack, Have just accepted an offer. So looking for something to rent in reach of Northampton. Preferably with an Aga!!0
-
Hello. Nice to see you're back. I'd say 11-13% and 5 seats.JackW said:
Good morning Sean.Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
What's your latest projection for Ukip vote share and seat number at the general election?0 -
I thought they both did!Alanbrooke said:
Scots fighting over who wears the skirt at home.anotherDave said:Just looking at the 4 Nov Panelbase Scotland poll. It included an EU referendum question.
Men would vote to leave the EU, women would vote to stay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland0 -
By and large people dont worry about women changing the culture of their country...CarlottaVance said:
But these "right wing voters" were much more relaxed about gender based positve discrimination:Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
Net support:
Lab: +39
UKIP: +9
LibD: +8
Con: +2
It's only when you get to ethnic minorities and gays that they discover their "social conservatism".......
0 -
So from the pre-briefing we have seen of Miliband's speech, are we heading for a "minimum tax" (like Obama's Buffet Rule or whatever it was)?0
-
Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.0 -
Positive discrimination for women in employment could be interpreted as maternity leave. Or that some personal services (doctor/carer) may require/desire a specific gender.CarlottaVance said:
But these "right wing voters" were much more relaxed about gender based positve discrimination:Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
Net support:
Lab: +39
UKIP: +9
LibD: +8
Con: +2
It's only when you get to ethnic minorities and gays that they discover their "social conservatism".......0 -
Thank you Sean.Sean_F said:
Hello. Nice to see you're back. I'd say 11-13% and 5 seats.JackW said:
Good morning Sean.Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
What's your latest projection for Ukip vote share and seat number at the general election?
Seems about correct.
0 -
As I said, when you survey people specifically about all-women shortlists and boardroom quotas, you find big majorities against.CarlottaVance said:
But these "right wing voters" were much more relaxed about gender based positve discrimination:Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
Net support:
Lab: +39
UKIP: +9
LibD: +8
Con: +2
It's only when you get to ethnic minorities and gays that they discover their "social conservatism".......0 -
It's great to have you back Jack ..... PB.com simply isn't as much fun without you.JackW said:
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....0 -
I'm not sure mentioning Reckless in the questions will make much difference anyway. The fact is the by-election is about him and as the polls show it will be between Ukip and the Tories - you're either for Reckless or you're against him. I can't see Labour over-performing expectations somehow0
-
A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.0 -
Scotland
The post-referendum SNP surge seems to have knocked the LDs from 5/6% to 3/4%. There are 11 LD MPs representing Scottish constituencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland0 -
I haven't looked at the detail of this poll, but there are several things to bear in mind in general.DavidL said:The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
1. Turnout at general elections is generally higher than at a by-election. It's perfectly possible that the poll is picking up a reluctance of Tory loyalists to bother to turn out for a by-election less than six months before the general election, so that UKIP can win the former on differential turnout but lose the latter as reluctant voters turn out to loyally put their cross beside the name of David Cameron's representative in Rochester & Strood.
2. The principal difference between the two sets of results did not appear to be UKIP voters switching to the Tories for the general election, but UKIP voters being more likely to say that they "didn't know" which way they would vote at the general election. Perhaps there are voters who are happy to vote UKIP in a by-election, but are waiting to see how Farage does in the debates before making up their minds for the general election?
3. There may be a chunk of voters who are partially swayed by the vote Farage get Miliband message**. Obviously Miliband cannot become Prime Minister following the Rochester & Strood by-election, but it's a possibility at the general election, so people may change their vote accordingly.
** Logically, Rochester & Strood is now irrelevant to the question of whether Miliband becomes Prime Minister, because the local MP will be either Conservative or UKIP - Labour have lost too many votes to UKIP to have any chance of coming up through the middle - but the argument may still have traction, and affect voting intention for the general election.0 -
Surely you either are reckless or you take the government of this country seriously.Millsy said:I'm not sure mentioning Reckless in the questions will make much difference anyway. The fact is the by-election is about him and as the polls show it will be between Ukip and the Tories - you're either for Reckless or you're against him. I can't see Labour over-performing expectations somehow
0 -
Ed standing up
tofor vested interests...
@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Red Ed's safe seat "stitch-up" for Sir Keir Starmer revolt http://t.co/amtUMbEycL0 -
Very kind to be sure but the good ship PB will sail serenely on well after I'm food for the fishes although I do wonder who will fly the flag for the Jacobite cause ?!?peter_from_putney said:
It's great to have you back Jack ..... PB.com simply isn't as much fun without you.JackW said:
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....
0 -
It makes sense to have some degree of positive discrimination for women, as women's brains are shown to work slightly differently to men, so you benefit by having a mixed team with different approaches to a problem. Only a racist would say that a black man's brain works differently to a white man's brain, so with regards to race we should be colour blind.0
-
To be fair, not many people did change their vote for 2015 as compared to the by-election. The main effect was a big swathe of UKIP voters switching to "don't know".DavidL said:I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.0 -
Yes, I must admit the Vote Farage, Get Miliband meme just incites me to vote UKIP. Make a socially conservative point, but humiliate Cameron.Indigo said:
I think this is the "sending a message when its not an important vote" narrative, which personally I think is getting rather old. People have caught on by now that politicians just think its voters trying to send a message, and generally speaking ignore by-election upsets because changing anything doesn't fit in with their narrative. I think people are increasingly inclined to vote differently in a real election to send the sort of message which is hard to ignore, thinking they might put up with a bit of Ed, if it means Dave and his liberals firmly get the boot and the David Davis tendency gets a go instead.DavidL said:The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
"I couldn't beat Brown, but lost to Ed Miliband." A fine political epitaph.0 -
Justify that "slightly"...Socrates said:It makes sense to have some degree of positive discrimination for women, as women's brains are shown to work slightly differently to men, so you benefit by having a mixed team with different approaches to a problem. Only a racist would say that a black man's brain works differently to a white man's brain, so with regards to race we should be colour blind.
0 -
Tell that to the miners....Indigo said:
By and large people dont worry about women changing the culture of their country...CarlottaVance said:
But these "right wing voters" were much more relaxed about gender based positve discrimination:Sean_F said:
So, right wing voters tend to be hostile. Left wing voters are supportive. That's not a very surprising finding.CarlottaVance said:
On ethnic Minorities both Labour and UKIP are at the extremes:Sean_F said:
On the other two issues, it's Labour voters who are the outlier.CarlottaVance said:
On same sex marriage, a majority of other party voters supported it. A majority of UKIP voters opposed it.Sean_F said:
Actually it's Labour supporters whose response is markedly different from the rest. On "Positive" discrimination for ethnic minorities, Conservative voters are opposed by 12%, Lib Dems are evenly divided. Labour are in favour by 32%. WRT discrimination in favour of women, Conservatives are evenly divided, Labour in favour by 41%.CarlottaVance said:
The wording was the same for UKIP voters as everyone else. Their response was different.Sean_F said:
It's all in the wording.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Even the 60+ demographic were evenly split (all others heavily in favour)
Net support:
Lab: +32
LibD: +2
Con: -12
UKIP: -29 (60+: -9)
Net support:
Lab: +39
UKIP: +9
LibD: +8
Con: +2
It's only when you get to ethnic minorities and gays that they discover their "social conservatism".......
0 -
http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_≠_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/Innocent_Abroad said:
Justify that "slightly"...Socrates said:It makes sense to have some degree of positive discrimination for women, as women's brains are shown to work slightly differently to men, so you benefit by having a mixed team with different approaches to a problem. Only a racist would say that a black man's brain works differently to a white man's brain, so with regards to race we should be colour blind.
0 -
LOL, specific women obviously change things in the same way as specific men do, but women have been around rather a long time and any changes that women *in general* have on our culture happened before recorded history started. Immigration, and especially mass-immigration is a very new occurrence, and people can see their country changing before their eyes. Some people dont like that. It not about race, its about culture, if a massive influx of caucasians arrives and started changing people lives they would hate it, some minorities have been here a long time, and in significant numbers, but very few people cares because they go with the grain of our culture, other more recent arrivals cut across that grain and people then start to notice and complain.CarlottaVance said:
Tell that to the miners....Indigo said:
By and large people dont worry about women changing the culture of their country...
I currently live in a country with a very different culture from our own. I do my best to rub along, and go with the flow of their culture, it's their country, I respect how the want to run it. When in Rome... I think quite a lot of people, especially the more socially conservative, wish people coming to our country would do us the respect of doing the same,
0 -
Morning all,DavidL said:A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.
The new slogan sounds straight out of Axelrod's consultancy. This kind of stuff managed to keep Obama in place for second term.
0 -
2 would be fine - and 'cos I have a job again at a curtain factory to the North of Northampton"JackW said:
Very good.Icarus said:Jack, Have just accepted an offer. So looking for something to rent in reach of Northampton. Preferably with an Aga!!
May I ask .... two or four oven? .... and why Northampton?0 -
A picture of Andrew Gilligan standing infront of a poster of Mark Reckless or is it the other way round?0
-
Lib Dem grandee lunches with detached Tory Donor..... #defectionwatchMikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him0 -
I do wonder if Axelrod speaks British the same way as Ed appears to speak Human. The attack ads at the weekend didn't appear to go down very well. You have to wonder how well American campaigning technique transfer across the Atlantic.rottenborough said:
Morning all,DavidL said:A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.
The new slogan sounds straight out of Axelrod's consultancy. This kind of stuff managed to keep Obama in place for second term.0 -
I don't know, but Mr JackW was kind enough to forgive meJackW said:
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....
;-00 -
I'd say UKIP have made Labour irrelevant in Kent and Essex.OblitusSumMe said:
I haven't looked at the detail of this poll, but there are several things to bear in mind in general.DavidL said:The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
1. Turnout at general elections is generally higher than at a by-election. It's perfectly possible that the poll is picking up a reluctance of Tory loyalists to bother to turn out for a by-election less than six months before the general election, so that UKIP can win the former on differential turnout but lose the latter as reluctant voters turn out to loyally put their cross beside the name of David Cameron's representative in Rochester & Strood.
2. The principal difference between the two sets of results did not appear to be UKIP voters switching to the Tories for the general election, but UKIP voters being more likely to say that they "didn't know" which way they would vote at the general election. Perhaps there are voters who are happy to vote UKIP in a by-election, but are waiting to see how Farage does in the debates before making up their minds for the general election?
3. There may be a chunk of voters who are partially swayed by the vote Farage get Miliband message**. Obviously Miliband cannot become Prime Minister following the Rochester & Strood by-election, but it's a possibility at the general election, so people may change their vote accordingly.
** Logically, Rochester & Strood is now irrelevant to the question of whether Miliband becomes Prime Minister, because the local MP will be either Conservative or UKIP - Labour have lost too many votes to UKIP to have any chance of coming up through the middle - but the argument may still have traction, and affect voting intention for the general election.0 -
Because they're not being asked the same question:DavidL said:I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
a) Would you like, at minimal cost to yourself, to kick the government where it hurts?
b) Who do you think should be Prime Minister: David Cameron or Ed Miliband?0 -
Prejudged to have failed before he says a wordPatrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.
? 0 -
Plenty of Tories on hereJackW said:
Very kind to be sure but the good ship PB will sail serenely on well after I'm food for the fishes although I do wonder who will fly the flag for the Jacobite cause ?!?peter_from_putney said:
It's great to have you back Jack ..... PB.com simply isn't as much fun without you.JackW said:
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....0 -
I dont think it does hurt that much any more. I think politicians mostly tend to shug, say its the voters sending them a message and it will swing back at the election, issue the usual platitudes about "listening" (as compared to "hearing") and "need to explain our policies better" (rather than change them to something the voters actually want), and then carry on as before.Charles said:
Because they're not being asked the same question:DavidL said:I would of course like Mike to be right about this and I would like a Tory win but one of several flies in the ointment is that on this occasion the Ashcroft poll was somewhat similar to the other polls by other organisations. Unless they also over prompted the evidence that the over prompt has caused a distortion is not yet visible.
The most interesting part of the Ashcroft poll was of course the part indicating that the tories may well recover the seat in May. That is a curious effect. No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I really can't see circumstances in which I would vote differently in a by election and then less than 6 months later. I can imagine turnout being different but why would people change their vote when being asked the same question? Maybe its just me.
a) Would you like, at minimal cost to yourself, to kick the government where it hurts?
b) Who do you think should be Prime Minister: David Cameron or Ed Miliband?
0 -
Congratulations.Icarus said:
2 would be fine - and 'cos I have a job again at a curtain factory to the North of Northampton"JackW said:
Very good.Icarus said:Jack, Have just accepted an offer. So looking for something to rent in reach of Northampton. Preferably with an Aga!!
May I ask .... two or four oven? .... and why Northampton?
You'll no doubt be adding to the yellow peril insurgency in Northampton North constituency.
0 -
Indeed.Charles said:
I don't know, but Mr JackW was kind enough to forgive meJackW said:
Mrs JackW has been accused of the same :Icarus said:
Sorry but reminds me of the Caroline Aherne question to Debbie McGee:MikeSmithson said:Just to add. Lord Ashcroft invited me to his office yesterday where we met for the first time and had great discussion on polling. I mentioned the above thoughts on Rochester.
He's a really nice guy and it was real pleasure seeing him
What first attracted you to billionaire Lord Ashcroft?
"What first attracted you to the devilish handsome rich nobleman ?"
Titters ....
;-0
Mrs JackW has always been fond of a small appetizer before a more substantial main course.
0 -
It is with a member of the opposite sex.CarlottaVance said:
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?Indigo said:
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!
0 -
Anyone know what time is Ed's great speech? Might be worth tuning into bbc 24 if its on.0
-
I suggest you read it again. Apart from anything else, what would "slightly" mean in this context?Indigo said:
http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_≠_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/Innocent_Abroad said:
Justify that "slightly"...Socrates said:It makes sense to have some degree of positive discrimination for women, as women's brains are shown to work slightly differently to men, so you benefit by having a mixed team with different approaches to a problem. Only a racist would say that a black man's brain works differently to a white man's brain, so with regards to race we should be colour blind.
0 -
It wasn't actually specified......opening a whole new can of worms.......Swiss_Bob said:
It is with a member of the opposite sex.CarlottaVance said:
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?Indigo said:
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!
0 -
An interesting thread by Mike but I'm not sure of the extent to which the evidence for it in the other polling for the R&S by-election backs it up.
There've been four polls conducted for R&S. These do span over a month so obviously there can be real movements in opinion in that time and differences in numbers aren't necessarily due to methodology or sample composition.
Even so, Survation on 04/10/14 asked "Which party do you think you are most likely to vote for in this by-election in Rochester & Strood?" and ended with a UKIP lead of 9%.
Then, on 17-21 Oct, the Comres poll asked "As you may have heard, there will be a by-election on 20th November to elect a Member of Parliament for your local constituency of Rochester and Strood ..." in Q2 and "And in the by-election on 20th November, do you think you will vote for the ..." in Q3, before listing the parties. UKIP had a lead of 13%.
Survation then conducted a second survey, with the first question after establishing the 2010 vote baseline being introduced by "Following the move of your MP, Mark Reckless to UKIP, there will be a by-election in your Rochester and Strood constituency on the 20th November to elect a new MP for your area ..." before asking the VI question: "Which party's candidate are you most likely to vote for in the by-election?" UKIP had a 15% lead.
So the 12% UKIP lead by Ashcroft is very much in line with what's already been found, and slightly less than the ComRes poll which didn't name-check any candidate or party.
Now, as I've said, it may be that there's been a real move in opinion away from Reckless during the campaign that is being masked by an equal and opposite effect produced by name-checking him in the question. In this case, though, I'd be inclined to assume the simple explanation is the right one, namely that opinion hasn't much shifted and he's on course to hold his seat by low double-figures.0 -
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.Patrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.0 -
Here you go:Innocent_Abroad said:
I suggest you read it again. Apart from anything else, what would "slightly" mean in this context?Indigo said:
http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_≠_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/Innocent_Abroad said:
Justify that "slightly"...Socrates said:It makes sense to have some degree of positive discrimination for women, as women's brains are shown to work slightly differently to men, so you benefit by having a mixed team with different approaches to a problem. Only a racist would say that a black man's brain works differently to a white man's brain, so with regards to race we should be colour blind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w0 -
They were kept up pretty successfully by Labour and their allies in the media for about 11 full years against the Tories, from the ERM exit in 1992 to IDS's removal in 2003. Six months is nothing.NickPalmer said:
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.Patrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.0 -
Holding him to account = bullying ?NickPalmer said:
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.Patrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.
If he's that soft he should step down for his own good.0 -
Translation: You hope your gimp will get a sympathy vote. Good luck with that.NickPalmer said:
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.Patrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.0 -
Most UKIP voters won't have attended top boarding schools.Swiss_Bob said:
It is with a member of the opposite sex.CarlottaVance said:
Why are the party of "social conservatives" twice as likely to first have had sex at 15 or under?Indigo said:
Or possibly because they are the only social conservative party left in town. Labour disowned most of the WWC vote, the Tories disowned the shire vote, both parties look surprised then their voting levels are in the cr@pper. Run a similar poll on say trade union participation, and announce that Labour are a party apart, or on tax cuts and announce the Tories are a party apart, or on wearing sandals and announce the LDs are a part apart.CarlottaVance said:Further evidence UKIP voters are a breed apart- net support for
UKIP (OA)
Positive discrimination for women in employment: +9 (+21)
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in employment: -29 (+6)
Right of same sex couples to marry: -12 (+30)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dil2gusjn0/RedBoxResults_141111_political_issues_website.pdf
Maybe it's because they are around twice as likely to have first had sex at 15 or under?
Doesn't strike me as particularly socially conservative!
0 -
I think Nick may have a good point: it's all become a little too hysterical. Indeed, I fell for it a little by punting on Alan J agreeing to run over the last weekend. It was high risk, high reward and as a bet it has failed. Once again people have underestimated Miliband the Younger.NickPalmer said:
I think people feel the media coverage has strayed into trivial bullying - the hissing of the reporter asking the leadership question at the CBI conference was one example of people getting fed up - and we'll see some recovery. not necessarily because of the speech and the strong BBC interview last night, but because he's been oversold by the hostile coverage. An optimistic view is that people have actually been inoculated by the personal attacks going OTT too early: it's going to be hard to keep them up till May.Patrick said:Flash PB poll please:
What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?
A. Clear success, great speech, polls recover.
B. Clear flop, doesn't speak human, polling gets even worse.
C. Meh. Nothing changes.0 -
Do you not think he had a bit more raw material to work with in Obama?rottenborough said:
Morning all,DavidL said:A fairly consistent trend over the last couple of years is that when Ed drifts into think tank mode and disappears from our screens Labour drift somewhat higher but when he is on the news they drift lower.
It is quite brave of him to test that theory when Labour are already lower (mainly thanks to him of course).
It may just be me but is another vacuous soundbite like the zero zero economy really the way to go? The day after real wages finally started rising again. In a country where an ever increasing share of the tax burden is borne by the highest paid? Is this latest critique going to have a longer shelf life than the squeezed middle? He really is risking simply keeping the story going with another banal speech made up of sociological terminology which people struggle to ascribe meaning to.
The new slogan sounds straight out of Axelrod's consultancy. This kind of stuff managed to keep Obama in place for second term.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2832498/Student-20-speaks-fury-photos-Facebook-profile-stolen-used-pornographic-website.html
Sad story, but it amused me that she only discovered it when she was contacted by a friend of her mother's who said he has "seen the advert while surfing the web"
Yeah. Right. We believe you. Move along here. Nothing to see.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
