politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opinium has the Tories 2% ahead fir the first time since it

MTimT said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Easterross said:

Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.

A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones.
And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?

"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"

Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.

chestnut said:

Ashcroft has the Tories winning or level in around a dozen LD seats and within 4 points on another four.

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MTimT said:

Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.

But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?

The analogy would be using a set of rulers to measure one person's heights, and taking measurements a different number of times with each ruler (which each is imperfect), and averaging them together.

Sean_F said:

On UNS, the Lib Dems would lose c.25 seats to the Tories. But, we have solid electoral evidence that Lib Dem incumbents outperform .

On UNS, the Conservatives would lose 52 English seats to Labour. But, we have solid electoral evidence that first time incumbents outperform.

MikeSmithson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Easterross said:

Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.

A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones.
And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?

"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"

I happen to agree with Easterross about TNS which part weights its samples to what they did at last year's Euros when turnout was just 36%. That's going to be good for UKIP and bad for CON & LD.

felix said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MTimT said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Easterross said:

Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.

A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones.
And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?

"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"

Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.

But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?

No - 5 YGs in 1 week is basically no more useful than any one of them v say Opinium or ICM

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MTimT said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Easterross said:

Evening all and a very disingenuous headline that only 2 out of 18 polls have had Tory leads. Neither Opinium nor ICM produce polls like diahorrea the way YouGov does. One thing is for sure we now know TNS is just garbage and should be ignored. 3 consecutive months with 7% Labour leads.

A poll is a poll. Each YouGov is unique - they aren't clones.
And TNS should be ignored because they don't give the results you want?

"These aren't the polls leads you're looking for!"

Sunil, you are right that each poll is independent, but each polling house has its own biases. If you want to even out polls, you should do and average of only the latest polls from a given polling house, as RCP does with US polls, otherwise you are weighting your average to the biases of the house which polls most frequently. Now if YouGov do multiple series (e.g. a daily, a weekly and then one or more commissioned for others) you might be justified in including the latest of each series. But I am with Easterross on this one - and not just because it gives the result I don't like.

But if you want to find the average height of a school-class of kids, isn't that like kind of ignoring most of the tall kids (if over-represented) for fear of skewing the average?

MaxPB said:

Maybe, just maybe that ICM wasn't an outlier.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yeah looking at the sub samples.

Scotland

SNP 31, Con 28, Lab 25.

Okay.

rural_voter said:

"Somerton and Frome is an astonishing price at 4-11 when you consider the lead, and the selection issues there."

I can't find those odds now so someone probably agreed with you.

felix said:

peter_from_putney said:

surbiton said:

peter_from_putney said:

Aargh ........ I see Mike yet again, for the umpteenth time, quotes his 11.4% statistic within this threader head!
The truth is that Opinium's key finding is that the difference in the VI between the two major parties (let's not foolishly refer to the LibDems as such any longer) has narrowed by 4% in the Tories' favour since their previous poll. This is potentially hugely significant in terms of the number of seats it would move as Mike is only too well aware.
Indeed I very much doubt he would have written this morning's thread, at least in such damning terms from the Blues' perspective had he been aware of the numbers in Opinium's poll set to be released just a few hours later - for it largely answers his expressed puzzlement as regards why such diverse expert opinions held by the likes of Stephen Fisher, Peter Kellner, Matthew Shaddick, Rod Crosby, etc all continue to hold a relatively bullish view of the Tories' GE seats prospects.
We have now seen significant shifts of opinion in favour of the Tories having been reported by ICM and now by Opinium. Were these to be replicated by say another couple of respected pollsters (as opposed to the Mickey Mouse variety) over the next couple of weeks or so, then this would more than justify the current betting market odds, irrespective of Mike's 11.4% mantra, whether he likes it or not!

When did Fisher and Crosby graduate from being jokers to experts ?

Do you seriously consider yourelf brighter than these two individuals?

Sadly I think he does.

surbiton said:

MikeK said:

Ann Sheridan ‏@bernerlap 1h1 hour ago
“@Telegraph:At least 20 dead as US freezes under Siberian Express http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11426842/At-least-20-dead-as-US-freezes-under-Siberian-Express.html … ”damned global warming again

Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.

I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.

Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.

You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?

surbiton said:

MikeK said:

Ann Sheridan ‏@bernerlap 1h1 hour ago
“@Telegraph:At least 20 dead as US freezes under Siberian Express http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11426842/At-least-20-dead-as-US-freezes-under-Siberian-Express.html … ”damned global warming again

Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.

I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.

Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.

You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Maybe Ed Miliband is going to bring back the Kinnocks as well - well maybe one of them in the Valleys - back to the seventies right enough

surbiton said:

MikeK said:

Ann Sheridan ‏@bernerlap 1h1 hour ago
“@Telegraph:At least 20 dead as US freezes under Siberian Express http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11426842/At-least-20-dead-as-US-freezes-under-Siberian-Express.html … ”damned global warming again

Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.

I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.

Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.

You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?

Grandiose said:

Afghanistan v Sri Lanka

I expect the "hosts" to struggle. They achieved 162 against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have more to them. If I were a betting man, I'd take 10/11 under 175.5.

Yes, big hitters have been able to punish Malinga et al, but Afghanistan aren't in a position to take advantage. I expect fifty overs (or until all out) of pretty high pressure.

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

TGOHF said:

ST front page bad for Balls.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.

I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.

I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?

I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.

I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?

I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!

chestnut said:

MikeGreene said:

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%.

We know that;

a) Labour's super-efficient vote:MP ratio in Scotland is likely to collapse,
b) Labour is piling up votes in seats it has already won in by-elections, whilst making no progress anywhere else;

Anecdotally, I hear much less willingness to lend NOTA votes to the Lib Dems.

The left consider them to have been traitorous pig-dogs (copyright: someone on here) and have spotted five years of supporting Tory policy, so will not repeat the folly.

Meanwhile, Nigel is saying some things that Ed is incapable of saying, and Essex man (and Kent man) in particular welcomes that.

All that said, I wouldn't bet a penny on a Tory majority.

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.

I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?

I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!

If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox

https://www.dropbox.com/

Does this work, please? (I haven't shared using Dropbox before)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83sxf8225s7h3mm/2015 General Election Possibilities Latest.xlsx?dl=0

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.

In my admittedly very amateur way, I have tried to model each of the GB seats according to the sort of moves the polls are suggesting from one party to another since 2010.

Almost whatever numbers I put in, it seems to me that the LD collapse means Con requires nothing like a 7-10% national lead to gain an overall majority - more like 4%. Also, with Scotland behaving as it seems to be, even a 1% Con lead nationally (equating to around a 3.5% lead in England) would lead to Con getting more seats than Lab.

I have made a few adjustments for Scotland, for LD incumbency, and for a the UKIP effect being lower in Con/Lab marginals, but still I see pretty much the above.

Possibly I have just done something stupid in my model - and I would be delighted if someone would check it out - but if I have got it least partially right then maybe the market is behaving much more rationally than OGH suggests.

Hello and welcome from one of your fellow addicts.

I'd love to see this model, and I'm sure other PBers would love to as well, any chance you could link to it, so we can have a play with it and test it?

I would love to if someone could tell me how to do so. Sorry I am technically fairly incompetent!

If it is an excel spreadsheet, you could post it for us to view via dropbox

https://www.dropbox.com/

Does this work, please? (I haven't shared using Dropbox before)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/83sxf8225s7h3mm/2015 General Election Possibilities Latest.xlsx?dl=0

Yes it does work.

I sadly don't have time to look at it this evening (I have the morning thread to write)

But I'll have a look tomorrow and give my thoughts tomorrow (though I suspect other PBers will give their thoughts before I do)

Again many thanks for this.

TGOHF said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@TSEofPB: Some @YouGov polling that might not make for pleasant viewing for Labour or the two Eds http://t.co/HUOyYu3Kki

2 Eds are better than 1.

Labour fighting light ferrets in a sack. Bringing back a washed up adulterer to campaign on a topic no one gives an Aylesbury duck about. No wonder the punters are placing money on the blues.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

ST front page bad for Balls.

I think I might finally be able to do a PB thread headlined

"Balls deep in trouble"

MikeGreene said:

Never having posted on PB before despite being an addict, please don't jump down my throat.