politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls have the battle broadly tied – the spread betting

Firsty?

Edit: "Can we expect a proper cross-over in the final 17 days?"

I think that depends on how you define 'proper cross-over'. At this stage I would favour every pollster showing a lead for one party or the other, with no polls showing a contrary lead. And with Lab-Con apparently so close, and some pollsters only doing a few polls between now and then, I'd say that's unlikely.

So I guess we'll be going into the GE with the situation pretty much as it is.

It would not surprise me if one or more pollsters are very embarrassed after the GE. The question is knowing which one(s)... ;-)

Fpt:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?

Zero chance.
Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.

More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.

They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.

UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.

The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.

If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.

foxinsoxuk said:

Fpt:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

anotherDave said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?

Zero chance.
Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.

More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.

They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.

UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.

The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.

If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.

UKIP are not the BNP but they have by and large absorbed BNP voters, which need to be considered when thinking of UKIP's starting point.

Sort of like the old remark about how 'not all animals are dogs, but all dogs are animals'. 'Not all UKIP voters are former BNP, but (largely) former BNP are UKIP voters.'

FPT @ydothur, @kle4

Regarding crowding in a 900MP commons: stick 'em in Westminster Hall. It's in the same building, it's only 100 feet from the existing chamber, and can hold thousands.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17444950
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202301/response/500605/attach/html/14/foiextract20140404-14870-1ur9dup-0-154_1.jpg

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

Lib Dem posters up in St Albans. Also Labour have been spotted.

During this week we have received another Labour double A3 glossy, a Conservative double A4 glossy and a single A3 colourful, but not glossy, Lib Dem. Still awaiting a Green leaflet.

EPG said:

Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

EPG said:

Remembering the Greek rules of rhetoric, I'll choose an example that appeals to the average PB reader's ethos and pathos, as well as logos: The SNP would still win almost all the seats in Scotland if Scotland had 85 rather than 59 seats. You don't like the SNP, do you?

I don't want them to be in power, whether directly or indirectly and i thought their conduct during the referendum was morally wrong. But that should not prevent them being represented in the House in accordance with their electorate's wishes. If the Scottish electorate wish to be represented by 89 SNP MPs, then 89 SNP MPs they shall have, and I'l make sure they have a packed lunch for the journey.

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Dan hodges tweets on vote registration are serious ly lol. What a guy!!!!!!

felix said:

Yorkcity said:

compouter2 said:

Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.

I seriously disagree with Danny 565 on politics but he's the only honest Labour poster on here.

Says it all , he has stockholm syndrome as he is on here to much.

Danny565 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Fpt:



Don't forget to factor in demographics, though. Barking and Dagenham were among the best BNP performances last time, but I doubt they'll be close to the best UKIP performances this time because the WWC population has fallen.

They've moved in much part to Thurrock, this is why Thurrock is a 2 way shoot out between LAB and UKIP

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

JosiasJessop said:

Firsty?


It would not surprise me if one or more pollsters are very embarrassed after the GE. The question is knowing which one(s)... ;-)

YouGov - you heard it here first.

anotherDave said:

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

Thank you, that's very helpful

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

Where is itwasrigged?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11546760/The-SNPs-very-Scottish-conspiracy....html

anotherDave said:

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

MarkSenior said:

anotherDave said:

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%

Thank you :-)

As an aside, that means some people's methodology in respect of UKIP is going to look very silly.

Yorkcity said:

compouter2 said:

Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.

Wobly Thursday, Swingback Sunday and Coalition Crossover, pollsters, election predictors, Monte Carlo permutations.... this election could lay waste to many a reputation on here.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.

Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.

Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.

Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.

BBC. It was during This Week (on BBC 1 after Question Time) that this happened.

See: it's a good thing you're here :-)

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.

Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.

BBC. It was during This Week (on BBC 1 after Question Time) that this happened.

See: it's a good thing you're here :-)

LOL.

Its entirely possible what I mentioned was due to a BBC rule rather than due to Ofcom.

Richard may be right in his claim that its wrong for specific candidates only to mention a constituency but its perfectly OK for party representatives representing the candidate's party to discuss the constituency [edit - phew sounds like something Sir Humphrey would say] ... but either way it seems to be a "letter but not spirit of the law" claim.

THIS IS A USEFUL POST ABOUT MOE: LET ME PUT THIS SENTENCE HERE SO I CAN FIND IT LATER

MarkSenior said:

anotherDave said:

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%

rcs1000 said:

RodCrosby said:

viewcode said:

EPG said:

Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...

I think we should change our electoral system so that every day there is a one-in-60 million chance that you become an MP. And everybody elected is an MP for 18 months.

Should ensure things are entertaining, at least. Although betting opportunities might be limited.

+1

MarkSenior said:

anotherDave said:

viewcode said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
LD 7.5, 8, 8
UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
GRN 6, 5, 5.5

A very stable picture.

It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?

You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

(Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)

I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


"Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717

As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%

Link?

felix said:

One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.

I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.

However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.

compouter2 said:

Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

Isn't that pretty much what the phone polls have been showing? There was that Comres thing last week- if only I'd worked out how to link from this phone.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.

Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.

Dair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

Seems to be a clear decision by James to do this then, Margaret Curran also appears to think the law applies to other people as she twice made constituency specific remarks when interviewed on the Daily Politics last week.

The alternative and far more likely explanation being that you are wrong.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.

Strong stuff Richard.

Any chance of putting a yellow diamond sign in your garden. ?

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

It comes under section 6.8

6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.

It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

It comes under section 6.8

6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.

It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.

National is an "electoral area".

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

It comes under section 6.8

6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.

It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

For the record Diane James could not have broken the law WHATEVER she said.

The only organisation that could POTENTIALLY have broken the law was the BBC.

But I agree with you - it was so brief and in passing and Andrew Neil cut her off after literally about two seconds so, in practice, it was reasonable to leave it there.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.

Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

Yes I would contend they are. My interpretation of democracy - and I will obviously concede interpretations differ - is based on the election of a representative for the people of a given constituency. As such anything that promotes answerability to the party over answerability to the electorate is a reduction in democracy. They may not be undemocratic as such but if the electoral system allows the party to exert pressure on the representative they they are less democratic.

And of course that applies in the UK as well. The system we have now is increasingly undemocratic as the parties have way too much power - one reason why so many people are turned off politics entirely. But a PR system - crystallising the idea that power should be proportional for the parties and so legitimising their claims and their abilities to bully MPs - would only make that worse.

As for the HoL the only way I wold accept it could be reformed into an elected chamber is if every vote was a free vote and whips were banned.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.

Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.

Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.

RodCrosby said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

anotherDave said:

Cookie said:

Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.

What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.

Get real. Nothing is more centralist than FPTP, with its closed-list-of-one, Duvergerian agenda, safe seats for life, AWS and parachutists from Central Office, etc...

True, but are other electoral systems of western democracy better, or should we make our own original sytem?
The best democracy is the swiss one but that's because they have constant referendums on anything small or big.

Apart from Carswell no other MP has ever tried to thing outside the box on this issue, and that is because like on most things people don't care about things until push comes to shove and are forced to make a choice.

The AV referendum was like that, people were forced to choose between 2 bad electoral systems and FPTP won because it was more simple and convenient than AV, I even had a bad joke at the time mixing STV & STD.

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

weejonnie said:

Dair said:

WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.

What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!

No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.

Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.

Wrong.

The relevant rule says:

"6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.

On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.

Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.

The BBC rules are not criminal law and the Ofcom rules apply to the broadcasters not to their individual guests so - once again - you are wrong.

Ave_it said:

Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

CON 305
LAB 256
LD 34
SNP 32
PC 3
GRN 1
UKIP 1
NI 18

Watford CON hold!

Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!

What kind of lengths did you go into in order for your result to be exactly the same as the 2010 one? Oh, and you forgot Galloway.

Good evening, everyone.

Odd start to the season.

Every race, if you followed my tips, has been red. But if I get a 2/1 winner next time, I'm green overall. (Today was red by 50 pence, using my standard £10 stake comparison). I've had 3/7 tips right. So, not quite sure how to feel about that.

Post-race piece will be up before 7pm. Probably.

Ave_it said:

Speedy said:

Ave_it said:

Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

CON 305
LAB 256
LD 34
SNP 32
PC 3
GRN 1
UKIP 1
NI 18

Watford CON hold!

Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!

What kind of lengths did you go into in order for your result to be exactly the same as the 2010 one? Oh, and you forgot Galloway.

I don't think SNP got 32 in 2010. And Bradford West = LAB GAIN

2010 GE result: CON 306, LAB 258.
Your prediction: CON 305, LAB 256.

How did you manage?