politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On election day 2010 the betting markets had CON with a 100
Comments
-
I am going to see the Matt Forde Political party interview next week and the guest is Tommy Robinson... should be v interestingkle4 said:
I will freely admit I was probably one of them. The first time I recall hearing someone talk about grooming gangs of asian men it was the leader of the EDL I believe, and obviously he was presented as and I took him to be, a racist nutbag. Now, I'm not about to start taking what they say as gospel, or think in anyway their 'solutions' are the way to go, but I like to think now if such claims emerged, I would not instinctively dismiss them just because of the source.isam said:
Anyone in the real world with an open mind has known this for years.kle4 said:
The judge in this case seems to consider such reticence a major concern to be addressed, given several references in the afterword, which seems more likely to be read than much of the underlying detail in this case. I suspect the final paragraph will be much quoted:isam said:
Rotherham.. people said for years that Asian men were abusing underage girlskle4 said:
Just flicking through, some marvellous little details along the way:dr_spyn said:some light reading from Tower Hamlets for the pb legal eagles.
https://trialbyjeory.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/judgment.pdf
Para592...The nadir came when one witness gave a graphic account of how he had attended a polling station to cast his vote and found it a haven of tranquility, only to be confronted by Mr Hoar with absolutely incontrovertible evidence that the witness had, in fact, voted by post well before polling day and could not have voted in person on the day
This will prove quite the read, I have no doubt.
They were ignored, called racist... they were right
Tower Hamlets... people said for years that the voting was fraudulent and Rahman was corrupt
They were ignored, called racist... they were right
para686 Events of recent months in contexts very different from electoral malpractice have starkly demonstrated what happens when those in authority are afraid to confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism and Islamophobia. Even in the multicultural society which is 21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost.
Dogmatic multiculturalists just refused to see it. Trevor Phillips, the leading Multiculturalist for many years, should be knighted for having the guts to admit it was all bollocks0 -
Can't find this Labour Landmines market on the Ladbrokes site.
Any decent sign up offers available for Ladbrokes?0 -
P*ss Off Tory Abusers, Tory's OKStereotomy said:
Sure, but how will I form an acronym for POTATO?isam said:
Cant be botheredStereotomy said:
Okay, but when polls report whole numbers, they've usually rounded from a decimal, right? So if you just add them all together you end up compounding the rounding errors way more than is necessary. Your numbers don't even have to come close to adding to zero (not that you'd expect them to exactly, but there'd be some reasonable margin around zero you'd expect to be within).isam said:
Eh?Stereotomy said:
Yeah...Pulpstar said:
Plaid surge on by those numbers.isam said:
Whereas my SPUD (the best way to tell the way the political wind is blowing) does no cherry picking whatsoever.. it takes every poll and compares it with the previous poll from that organisationAllyPally_Rob said:
Nope I'm just not cherry-picking polls like you that's all. If you look at a poll of polls for Labour since the campaign started you'll get my point.OblitusSumMe said:
Ashcroft 30% and ICM 32% at the start of the week. Is your memory that short?AllyPally_Rob said:The Labour vote seems remarkably stable at the moment on around 34/35%.
This week
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
This is not to say the Tories wont win, just showing the direction of travel so far this week
isam, do you round and then sum, or sum and then round? If the former, why?
This is what I do.. it is simple and nothing fancy at all
On Monday ICM gave Tories 34.. their previous ICM was 39. That is -5
Today Panelbase give Tories 31.. their previous Panelbase was 33. That is -2
So far this week after 8 polls the cumulative Tory score is -9
Wouldn't it make more sense to add the raw, unrounded numbers, then do the rounding of the whole sum?
Its measuring which way the wind is blowing, it could be better or worse for each party but unlikely after 8 polls that 8 were worse and none better because of rounding or vice versa
Be my guest if you want to do your own, more precise, version!0 -
I would hate to be an officer at Tower Hamlets. I knew a few, who left some while ago, and it was already a pretty nasty political environment to try and work in then.0
-
Poll Optimisation Through Aggregating Them, ObviouslyStereotomy said:
Sure, but how will I form an acronym for POTATO?isam said:
Cant be botheredStereotomy said:
Okay, but when polls report whole numbers, they've usually rounded from a decimal, right? So if you just add them all together you end up compounding the rounding errors way more than is necessary. Your numbers don't even have to come close to adding to zero (not that you'd expect them to exactly, but there'd be some reasonable margin around zero you'd expect to be within).isam said:
Eh?Stereotomy said:
Yeah...Pulpstar said:
Plaid surge on by those numbers.isam said:
Whereas my SPUD (the best way to tell the way the political wind is blowing) does no cherry picking whatsoever.. it takes every poll and compares it with the previous poll from that organisationAllyPally_Rob said:
Nope I'm just not cherry-picking polls like you that's all. If you look at a poll of polls for Labour since the campaign started you'll get my point.OblitusSumMe said:
Ashcroft 30% and ICM 32% at the start of the week. Is your memory that short?AllyPally_Rob said:The Labour vote seems remarkably stable at the moment on around 34/35%.
This week
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
This is not to say the Tories wont win, just showing the direction of travel so far this week
isam, do you round and then sum, or sum and then round? If the former, why?
This is what I do.. it is simple and nothing fancy at all
On Monday ICM gave Tories 34.. their previous ICM was 39. That is -5
Today Panelbase give Tories 31.. their previous Panelbase was 33. That is -2
So far this week after 8 polls the cumulative Tory score is -9
Wouldn't it make more sense to add the raw, unrounded numbers, then do the rounding of the whole sum?
Its measuring which way the wind is blowing, it could be better or worse for each party but unlikely after 8 polls that 8 were worse and none better because of rounding or vice versa
Be my guest if you want to do your own, more precise, version!0 -
Nicola Sturgeon’s insistence that Scotland’s large fiscal gap can be closed by rapidly accelerating Scottish economic growth have been challenged by figures in a new report from Fiscal Affairs Scotland, the economics think tank.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/23/election-2015-live-ifs-verdict-labour-conservatives-liberal-democrats-snp-tax-and-spending-plans
The FAS report shows Scottish GDP has never risen fast enough to allow Scotland to reach the higher than 5% annual growth needed to close a fiscal gap which, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said earlier this week, would grow each year to reach nearly £10bn by 2019/20.
This data helps explain why Nicola Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney are now soft-pedalling so much now on pressing for full fiscal autonomy – otherwise known as devo max in the UK.0 -
I've gone £10 Bristol West. First contest against the very vulnerable yellow peril on the board.antifrank said:I see that shadsy has come up with an ingenious way of parting punters from their money. I'm not putting any money on this. If I were going to do so, I'd choose Reading East. Labour are at 7/1 best price to take this seat and it's second on the list.
0 -
Just read Sean's RAPE post. Seriously funny if a little worrying for his psychiatrist0
-
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.0 -
After the hilarity of seeing Labour begging the SNP not to support them if there's a hung parliament, perhaps we'll now see the even greater hilarity of the SNP begging not to be given fiscal autonomy.Scott_P said:This data helps explain why Nicola Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney are now soft-pedalling so much now on pressing for full fiscal autonomy – otherwise known as devo max in the UK.
0 -
Oh Except Huppert but I think he is safe.0
-
Pi** Off To Another Trolling Outlet? (don't take that as a personal insult).Stereotomy said:
Sure, but how will I form an acronym for POTATO?isam said:
Cant be botheredStereotomy said:
Okay, but when polls report whole numbers, they've usually rounded from a decimal, right? So if you just add them all together you end up compounding the rounding errors way more than is necessary. Your numbers don't even have to come close to adding to zero (not that you'd expect them to exactly, but there'd be some reasonable margin around zero you'd expect to be within).isam said:
Eh?Stereotomy said:
Yeah...Pulpstar said:
Plaid surge on by those numbers.isam said:
Whereas my SPUD (the best way to tell the way the political wind is blowing) does no cherry picking whatsoever.. it takes every poll and compares it with the previous poll from that organisationAllyPally_Rob said:
Nope I'm just not cherry-picking polls like you that's all. If you look at a poll of polls for Labour since the campaign started you'll get my point.OblitusSumMe said:
Ashcroft 30% and ICM 32% at the start of the week. Is your memory that short?AllyPally_Rob said:The Labour vote seems remarkably stable at the moment on around 34/35%.
This week
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
This is not to say the Tories wont win, just showing the direction of travel so far this week
isam, do you round and then sum, or sum and then round? If the former, why?
This is what I do.. it is simple and nothing fancy at all
On Monday ICM gave Tories 34.. their previous ICM was 39. That is -5
Today Panelbase give Tories 31.. their previous Panelbase was 33. That is -2
So far this week after 8 polls the cumulative Tory score is -9
Wouldn't it make more sense to add the raw, unrounded numbers, then do the rounding of the whole sum?
Its measuring which way the wind is blowing, it could be better or worse for each party but unlikely after 8 polls that 8 were worse and none better because of rounding or vice versa
Be my guest if you want to do your own, more precise, version!0 -
Supposedly Ken Livingstone has compared this situation to something under communist East Germany. I'm glad to hear the communists took steps to remove corrupt individuals there I guess.0
-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/23/election-2015-live-ifs-verdict-labour-conservatives-liberal-democrats-snp-tax-and-spending-plansScott_P said:Nicola Sturgeon’s insistence that Scotland’s large fiscal gap can be closed by rapidly accelerating Scottish economic growth have been challenged by figures in a new report from Fiscal Affairs Scotland, the economics think tank.
The FAS report shows Scottish GDP has never risen fast enough to allow Scotland to reach the higher than 5% annual growth needed to close a fiscal gap which, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said earlier this week, would grow each year to reach nearly £10bn by 2019/20.
This data helps explain why Nicola Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney are now soft-pedalling so much now on pressing for full fiscal autonomy – otherwise known as devo max in the UK.
There is no possibility whatsoever that Scottish GDP growth was below 5% in 1999 and probably could not have been below 5% in 2004 or 2005.0 -
The never ending nonsense about this election.
Beeb blog
The robot election?
Newsbeat's election game
Newsbeat
Posted at 15:39
BBC
Have you tried BallotBots yet? It's a game all about the general election, except Newsbeat have turned your leaders into robots. Your task is to pair politicians with voters as you progress through a series of zones on your way to Number 10. But beware campaign pitfalls and tricky obstacles.
Try it here on BBC Taster
0 -
Kettering is 1-7 for the Tories at Betfair Sportsbook by the way.0
-
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
Re the Panelbase, do people think UKIP will get 17%?0
-
What are the English seats that Labour would gain in 2020 that it failed to win in 2015?taffys said:''The likelihood is the vote on the right will still be split in 2020 leading to further five years of Labour in office.''
Maybe, maybe not. The great unknown in this campaign is how WWC labour voters really view UKIP. Every potential UKIP labour fight seems to have been studiously avoided by the pollsters.
Labour will go into government at least 30 seats short of a majority, most probably having lost the popular vote. Imagine it's Labour 280, Con 270, LDs 25, SNP 50, UKIP 3.
I really do struggle to see how Labour would build on its popularity in government with the SNP, and win further English and Welsh marginals, unless it does very well in government indeed.
Foolish to make predictions 5 years out, perhaps even 2 weeks out, but imagine the Tories dropping 10 seats to UKIP, Labour dropping 24 seats to UKIP and the LDs recovering 5 seats from the Tories. Meanwhile the Tories pick up 25 marginals from Labour.
A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government.0 -
-
Analysis suggests Cannock Chase is the first definite Labour but Loughborough or Worcester could surprise.shadsy said:Got a new market up at Ladbrokes: Labour Landmines.
Which will be the highest entry on this list to return a Labour MP?
So, if Labour fail in Kettering and Reading East, but win Enfield Southgate, then that is the winner and everything else on the list is a loser, irrespective of results further down.
Kettering 16/1
Reading East 16/1
Enfield Southgate 16/1
Glasgow Central 16/1
Watford 12/1
Great Yarmouth 16/1
Thanet South 10/1
Loughborough 16/1
Cambridge 16/1
Ilford North 12/1
Brighton Pavilion 16/1
Bristol West 16/1
Sheffield Hallam 16/1
Bermondsey & Old Southwark 16/1
Worcester 16/1
Cannock Chase 16/1
Birmingham Yardley 16/1
Renfrewshire East 16/1
Harrow East 16/1
Stockton South 16/1
Wirral West 20/1
Croydon Central 20/1
Broxtowe 20/1
Hampstead & Kilburn 20/1
Bootle 33/10 -
YouGov produce roughly half of the polls that are published. Your statement that the "Labour vote seems remarkably stable at the moment on around 34/35%" would be entirely accurate if you appended the words ".. in YouGov polls." afterwards.AllyPally_Rob said:
Just because YouGov produce more polls doesn't devalue the polls themselves. It'd be brilliant if ICM decided to Poll daily but they don't.OblitusSumMe said:
I'm not cherry picking polls, I just don't see why people should fixate on YouGov because the Sun pay them to produce a poll every day.AllyPally_Rob said:
Nope I'm just not cherry-picking polls like you that's all. If you look at a poll of polls for Labour since the campaign started you'll get my point.OblitusSumMe said:
Ashcroft 30% and ICM 32% at the start of the week. Is your memory that short?AllyPally_Rob said:The Labour vote seems remarkably stable at the moment on around 34/35%.
The average of the phone polls gives a Labour score of 32.5%, which compares to a March average of 33.8%
I think there are 10 pollsters at the moment (depends on whether you count ComRes twice), so if you don't guard yourself against the extra frequency of YouGov's polls you risk yourself being seriously misled.0 -
Labour sub 200, Tory gain Perth North Perthshire etc. UKIP hoover up the north.Casino_Royale said:
What are the English seats that Labour would gain in 2020 that it failed to win in 2015?taffys said:''The likelihood is the vote on the right will still be split in 2020 leading to further five years of Labour in office.''
Maybe, maybe not. The great unknown in this campaign is how WWC labour voters really view UKIP. Every potential UKIP labour fight seems to have been studiously avoided by the pollsters.
Labour will go into government at least 30 seats short of a majority, most probably having lost the popular vote. Imagine it's Labour 280, Con 270, LDs 25, SNP 50, UKIP 3.
I really do struggle to see how Labour would build on its popularity in government with the SNP, and win further English and Welsh marginals, unless it does very well in government indeed.
Foolish to make predictions 5 years out, perhaps even 2 weeks out, but imagine the Tories dropping 10 seats to UKIP, Labour dropping 24 seats to UKIP and the LDs recovering 5 seats from the Tories. Meanwhile the Tories pick up 25 marginals from Labour.
A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government.0 -
Interesting to note that the judge sides with Rahman over the NEC, in the matter of his original deselection by Labour.
231
What happened next was a meeting of the NEC on 21 September 2010. The meeting was
attended by several very senior members of the Labour Party including Ms Harriet
Harman, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr Keith Vaz, Mr Jack Dromey and Mr Dennis Skinner.
[...]
234
A resolution was passed to suspend Mr Rahman, unseen and unheard. Next, the NEC
decided, then and there, to select and impose a new candidate. There was no suggestion that the Tower Hamlets Labour Party might be consulted, still less that there might be a new ballot. It was not even suggested that, as Mr Biggs had come second in the original ballot, he might, so to speak, move up to become the candidate. The NEC simply decided ad hoc that it would vote, then and there, between Mr Biggs and, of all people, Mr Abbas, whose accusations could have been, for all the NEC knew about it, a complete tissue of malicious falsehoods. 16 voted for Mr Abbas and 2 for Mr Biggs. The upshot of the meeting was thus that Mr Rahman, completely unaware of the accusations and given no opportunity to counter them, was summarily sacked as candidate and his accuser substituted.
235
Ms Shawcroft believed that the selection of Mr Abbas was motivated by the desire ‘not to leave themselves open to the charge of deselecting a Bangladeshi and replacing him with a white man’. Given Mr Abbas’s lack of support in the previous ballot, Ms Shawcroft’s belief has a lot going for it.
236
Although this judgment will have to be critical of Mr Rahman in many respects, in the matter of his deselection the court cannot but sympathise with him. His treatment by the NEC was, by any standards, utterly shameful and wholly unworthy of the Party which, rightly, prides itself on having passed the Human Rights Act 1998.
https://trialbyjeory.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/judgment.pdf0 -
Either Southportians just like sticking up posters or the Lib Dems are definitely going to win here. Where's Mark S when you need him0
-
There is no possibility whatsoever that Scottish GDP growth was below 5% in 1999 and probably could not have been below 5% in 2004 or 2005.Dair said:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/23/election-2015-live-ifs-verdict-labour-conservatives-liberal-democrats-snp-tax-and-spending-plansScott_P said:Nicola Sturgeon’s insistence that Scotland’s large fiscal gap can be closed by rapidly accelerating Scottish economic growth have been challenged by figures in a new report from Fiscal Affairs Scotland, the economics think tank.
The FAS report shows Scottish GDP has never risen fast enough to allow Scotland to reach the higher than 5% annual growth needed to close a fiscal gap which, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said earlier this week, would grow each year to reach nearly £10bn by 2019/20.
This data helps explain why Nicola Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney are now soft-pedalling so much now on pressing for full fiscal autonomy – otherwise known as devo max in the UK.
And in the intervening years?0 -
''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
0 -
What majorities do you have in your model for all these ?Barnesian said:
Analysis suggests Cannock Chase is the first definite Labour but Loughborough or Worcester could surprise.shadsy said:Got a new market up at Ladbrokes: Labour Landmines.
Which will be the highest entry on this list to return a Labour MP?
So, if Labour fail in Kettering and Reading East, but win Enfield Southgate, then that is the winner and everything else on the list is a loser, irrespective of results further down.
Kettering 16/1
Reading East 16/1
Enfield Southgate 16/1
Glasgow Central 16/1
Watford 12/1
Great Yarmouth 16/1
Thanet South 10/1
Loughborough 16/1
Cambridge 16/1
Ilford North 12/1
Brighton Pavilion 16/1
Bristol West 16/1
Sheffield Hallam 16/1
Bermondsey & Old Southwark 16/1
Worcester 16/1
Cannock Chase 16/1
Birmingham Yardley 16/1
Renfrewshire East 16/1
Harrow East 16/1
Stockton South 16/1
Wirral West 20/1
Croydon Central 20/1
Broxtowe 20/1
Hampstead & Kilburn 20/1
Bootle 33/1
I think there are worse 16-1 shots than Bristol West
0 -
isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?0
-
Isabel Hardman on her first ever trip to Edinburgh has spent the day following Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson around Edinburgh. Good to see that she managed to find her way out of the Westminster Bubble, I wonder how many other Westminster elite journalists who write page after page of drivel about Scotland have similarly never been to the dangerous and scary streets of Edinburgh. Getting to Edinburgh from London is pretty easy with regular trains and planes and even a road !!
Anyway here is her blog post about Murphy's Edinburgh "rally" of high percentage of Edinburgh's SLAB activists:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2015/04/jim-murphy-rallies-labour-activists-in-edinburgh/
I think the 2 mini buses to whisk these activists back home are parked around the corner.
0 -
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.isam said:
My mum worked in the treasury at Tower Hamlets council for decades.. everyone knew about Rahmankle4 said:I would hate to be an officer at Tower Hamlets. I knew a few, who left some while ago, and it was already a pretty nasty political environment to try and work in then.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc0 -
I think Labour are a long way off in Loughborough.Barnesian said:
Analysis suggests Cannock Chase is the first definite Labour but Loughborough or Worcester could surprise.shadsy said:Got a new market up at Ladbrokes: Labour Landmines.
Which will be the highest entry on this list to return a Labour MP?
So, if Labour fail in Kettering and Reading East, but win Enfield Southgate, then that is the winner and everything else on the list is a loser, irrespective of results further down.
Kettering 16/1
Reading East 16/1
Enfield Southgate 16/1
Glasgow Central 16/1
Watford 12/1
Great Yarmouth 16/1
Thanet South 10/1
Loughborough 16/1
Cambridge 16/1
Ilford North 12/1
Brighton Pavilion 16/1
Bristol West 16/1
Sheffield Hallam 16/1
Bermondsey & Old Southwark 16/1
Worcester 16/1
Cannock Chase 16/1
Birmingham Yardley 16/1
Renfrewshire East 16/1
Harrow East 16/1
Stockton South 16/1
Wirral West 20/1
Croydon Central 20/1
Broxtowe 20/1
Hampstead & Kilburn 20/1
Bootle 33/10 -
It's not up to the public.taffys said:I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
0 -
I think you can make a decent case for the following:
Kettering (Arbable price), Reading East, Southgate (Extremely strong London performance), Ilford North (Very strong London performance), Bristol West (My pick), Cannock Chase.
Anything below that - No.0 -
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
I thought the DUP ruled out a coalition. Considering many of the DUP supporters are PWC, going to bed with the Tories would simply mean another Unionist party emerging from the ashes of the DUP.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
Remember what happened to the UUP ?0 -
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
She said something.. and got made redundant!TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.isam said:
My mum worked in the treasury at Tower Hamlets council for decades.. everyone knew about Rahmankle4 said:I would hate to be an officer at Tower Hamlets. I knew a few, who left some while ago, and it was already a pretty nasty political environment to try and work in then.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc0 -
"If this were the case then favourites would always win." Not sure this is a good choice of phrase. It's possible for something to be a good guide - and possibly the best guide - to the outcome of an event without it being infallible or having 100% accuracy. For instance, in horseracing, the Betfair market is a very accurate guide these days and provides very valuable information, the more so the closer to the off, but that doesn't mean the favourite always wins.0
-
They all get counted.. unlike other cumulatives which are spoiled by one pollster dominating,I don't think it matters as much here as we are measuring the difference between each poll not averaging the pollsLestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
8 runner races Fav 1.8, 2nd Fav 3.5 are niceLordLucan said:"If this were the case then favourites would always win." Not sure this is a good choice of phrase. It's possible for something to be a good guide - and possibly the best guide - to the outcome of an event without it being infallible or having 100% accuracy. For instance, in horseracing, the Betfair market is a very accurate guide these days and provides very valuable information, the more so the closer to the off, but that doesn't mean the favourite always wins.
0 -
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper0 -
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper0 -
I think the political class is increasingly playing with fire in not reacting more strongly to such incidents. I'm generally a pretty mild-mannered person, but hearing about these situations where authorities look the other way to abuse going on in their own ranks is rather aggravating. We could get to see some very volatile politics in the future if a change is not made.isam said:
She said something.. and got made redundant!TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.isam said:
My mum worked in the treasury at Tower Hamlets council for decades.. everyone knew about Rahmankle4 said:I would hate to be an officer at Tower Hamlets. I knew a few, who left some while ago, and it was already a pretty nasty political environment to try and work in then.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc0 -
Brief thoughts on shadsy's offering.
(a) NO BET
(b) Glasgow Central might be of interest, since it's subject to a totally different [potential] swing from the preceding seats. And Bootle might be a bit big too, just on the chance of an outlier result / polls being wrong (looks better than Tory Maj @ 10/1)0 -
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.0 -
The public want net immigration numbers to be reduced.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
They don't understand why mainstream politicians can't or won't deliver this.0 -
Tell me, what should a Council officer have done ? Councils are no different from any other organisation in that in order to ensure someone senior is brought to book you need that little thing called evidence. To say "everyone knew about" is not providing evidence.TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc
I can't speak for Tower Hamlets, the BBC or Rotherham but in most of the Councils I've seen it is incredibly difficult for an Officer to make an allegation about a Member (much easier the other way round) and to make that allegation stick for all that Members have a strict Code of Conduct to which they should act.
One thing that has let a few Members down is email etiquette and I know of authorities where individual Members have been brought to account for language used about Officers in emails.
Many Councils are now much stronger on tackling cultures of bullying and harassment but that's not to say it still doesn't happen.
0 -
I have come to the conclusion that we need to start treating the word "racist" as just another insult. It is used so much to prevent criticism we need to stop giving it any special power.CD13 said:The Tower Hamlets report is somewhat blunt ...
"The EDL is a racist organisation: therefore anyone who criticises Mr Rahman is giving aid and comfort to the EDL: therefore anyone who gives aid and comfort to the EDL is himself a Racist: therefore it is racist to criticise Mr Rahman. This series of propositions informed all the responses of Mr Rahman and his team to criticisms and may be taken to be an epitome of the thought processes of Mr Alibor Choudhury."0 -
They can't because as a member of the EU we are unable to restrict immigration.Casino_Royale said:
The public want net immigration numbers to be reduced.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
They don't understand why mainstream politicians can't or won't deliver this.0 -
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.0 -
Many Codes of Conduct are no longer strict, or rather, precise when it comes to acceptable behaviours, making complaints difficult in those ones.stodge said:
Tell me, what should a Council officer have done ? Councils are no different from any other organisation in that in order to ensure someone senior is brought to book you need that little thing called evidence. To say "everyone knew about" is not providing evidence.TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc
I can't speak for Tower Hamlets, the BBC or Rotherham but in most of the Councils I've seen it is incredibly difficult for an Officer to make an allegation about a Member (much easier the other way round) and to make that allegation stick for all that Members have a strict Code of Conduct to which they should act.
One thing that has let a few Members down is email etiquette and I know of authorities where individual Members have been brought to account for language used about Officers in emails.
Many Councils are now much stronger on tackling cultures of bullying and harassment but that's not to say it still doesn't happen.
0 -
Wish I had started to do this earlier.. it would be possible, but time consuming to work backwards and compare the line with the betting moves I thinkStereotomy said:
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper0 -
YesJEO said:
I think the political class is increasingly playing with fire in not reacting more strongly to such incidents. I'm generally a pretty mild-mannered person, but hearing about these situations where authorities look the other way to abuse going on in their own ranks is rather aggravating. We could get to see some very volatile politics in the future if a change is not made.isam said:
She said something.. and got made redundant!TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.isam said:
My mum worked in the treasury at Tower Hamlets council for decades.. everyone knew about Rahmankle4 said:I would hate to be an officer at Tower Hamlets. I knew a few, who left some while ago, and it was already a pretty nasty political environment to try and work in then.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc
We are a Labour voting family, and both my parents worked in the public sector for 25 years. Both of them had their working lives almost ruined by political correctness getting in the way of the truth and dogma being valued above character0 -
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 6 mins6 minutes ago
Every poll the LibDems don't like they attack the messenger or the methodology. They are the #comfortpolling masters...0 -
Trott and Cook complete their 14th over without a boundary. Massive improvement in form from the pair of them, but zzzzz.....0
-
Quite. But then they don't understand why the government hasn't got non-EU migration under full control either.RobD said:
They can't because as a member of the EU we are unable to restrict immigration.Casino_Royale said:
The public want net immigration numbers to be reduced.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
They don't understand why mainstream politicians can't or won't deliver this.0 -
Most of the Council's senior officers will have had to be complicit with this. Let us hope that their careers in public service are over.stodge said:
Tell me, what should a Council officer have done ? Councils are no different from any other organisation in that in order to ensure someone senior is brought to book you need that little thing called evidence. To say "everyone knew about" is not providing evidence.TheWatcher said:
And no-one said anything, nothing was done.
Keeps happening doesn't it - BBC, Rotherham etc
I can't speak for Tower Hamlets, the BBC or Rotherham but in most of the Councils I've seen it is incredibly difficult for an Officer to make an allegation about a Member (much easier the other way round) and to make that allegation stick for all that Members have a strict Code of Conduct to which they should act.
0 -
I said government, not coalition. In practice, it would be C&S supplied by the DUP.surbiton said:
I thought the DUP ruled out a coalition. Considering many of the DUP supporters are PWC, going to bed with the Tories would simply mean another Unionist party emerging from the ashes of the DUP.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.
Remember what happened to the UUP ?0 -
Counting them all means it is effectively comparing to the first that week. Not that any choice would be right or wrong - it's just a consequence of daily YouGovs compared to larger intervals with other polls.isam said:
They all get counted.. unlike other cumulatives which are spoiled by one pollster dominating,I don't think it matters as much here as we are measuring the difference between each poll not averaging the pollsLestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
Is there polling evidence for this? I don't mean evidence that they want immigration reduced, I mean that they want _net_ immigration reduced, so the number of young foreign workers coming in depends on the number of British retirees moving abroad.Casino_Royale said:
The public want net immigration numbers to be reduced.0 -
Counting up LD posters is fools gold IMHO. Although, it can give an idea of how organised the voluntary party is and can demoralise the challenger.Roger said:Either Southportians just like sticking up posters or the Lib Dems are definitely going to win here. Where's Mark S when you need him
0 -
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.0 -
Yeah, it makes up almost half the change. Excluding it, Tories are only down 0.6% on average. Not great, but not as bad as the non-averaged numbers suggest.Anorak said:
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.0 -
haha well...Anorak said:
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.
I will try and keep a record of the best and worst for each party.. I think Tories -4 and +2 is the case here so you could say -7 is fairer maybe?
UKIP had a +4 and the worst is -1 I think so +5 for the week if you want to control for outliers0 -
Our most noble and learn'd friend is forgetting the PB Tories!!!chestnut said:Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 6 mins6 minutes ago
Every poll the LibDems don't like they attack the messenger or the methodology. They are the #comfortpolling masters...0 -
Not many about in Dore...Casino_Royale said:
Counting up LD posters is fools gold IMHO. Although, it can give an idea of how organised the voluntary party is and can demoralise the challenger.Roger said:Either Southportians just like sticking up posters or the Lib Dems are definitely going to win here. Where's Mark S when you need him
0 -
Yes I guess you are right thereLestuh said:
Counting them all means it is effectively comparing to the first that week. Not that any choice would be right or wrong - it's just a consequence of daily YouGovs compared to larger intervals with other polls.isam said:
They all get counted.. unlike other cumulatives which are spoiled by one pollster dominating,I don't think it matters as much here as we are measuring the difference between each poll not averaging the pollsLestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
And some of his polls are what they are using for comfort, so I guess he'd know.chestnut said:Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 6 mins6 minutes ago
Every poll the LibDems don't like they attack the messenger or the methodology. They are the #comfortpolling masters...
0 -
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.0 -
I dunno, don't think it would be too hard to plonk the wikipedia table in excel and do something similar.isam said:
Wish I had started to do this earlier.. it would be possible, but time consuming to work backwards and compare the line with the betting moves I thinkStereotomy said:
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper0 -
removing the best and worst changes should remedy thatRobD said:
Yeah, it makes up almost half the change. Excluding it, Tories are only down 0.6% on average. Not great, but not as bad as the non-averaged numbers suggest.Anorak said:
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.0 -
It is a fair enough way of doing it, you are just asking what the weekly change for each pollster is. Some will have many, some will only have one (and some, none).isam said:
Yes I guess you are right thereLestuh said:
Counting them all means it is effectively comparing to the first that week. Not that any choice would be right or wrong - it's just a consequence of daily YouGovs compared to larger intervals with other polls.isam said:
They all get counted.. unlike other cumulatives which are spoiled by one pollster dominating,I don't think it matters as much here as we are measuring the difference between each poll not averaging the pollsLestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
Going by Bookie's best prices reveals the following for Shadsy's market and that Bristol West probably isn't great.
Assumes independence of seats, which is obviously not the case too:
7.69 Kett 12
11.54 R East 7
11.54 E Sgate 6
11.54 G Cent 5
14.42 Watford 3
9.62 G Yarmouth 7-2
5.61 T Sth 5
7.48 Lborough 11-4
6.33 CBridge 9-4
3.8 I North 11-4
2.98 B Pav 5-2
2.49 B West 2
0 -
True. Grind 'em down then unlease the lunatics after tea. EDIT: Or sooner, it seems. Trott gone.kle4 said:
It's what they were always good at - others were there to be exciting. Step in the right direction at least.Anorak said:Trott and Cook complete their 14th over without a boundary. Massive improvement in form from the pair of them, but zzzzz.....
Oh don't change it on my account - you had to start somewhere.isam said:
haha well...Anorak said:
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls.
I will try and keep a record of the best and worst for each party.. I think Tories -4 and +2 is the case here so you could say -7 is fairer maybe?
UKIP had a +4 and the worst is -1 I think so +5 for the week if you want to control for outliers0 -
Is there polling evidence for this?
They want immigration filtered, not reduced.
The main parties see immigrants as all the same. But for voters, who live amongst them, they are very different. Many are fantastic. Others not so.
0 -
Which is it? 7 polls or 7 pollsters? Two different things.isam said:
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.0 -
If you want I can add this to my PB polling google doc, it shouldn't take too long to add a column to compare with the previous result from the same pollster.isam said:
Wish I had started to do this earlier.. it would be possible, but time consuming to work backwards and compare the line with the betting moves I thinkStereotomy said:
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper
Or I can do this offline, and send you the results, don't want to steal your thunder!0 -
Actually you're only comparing the latest of the current week to the last of the previous week, not the first of the current week. The first of the current week is entirely ignored effectively once the next comes in.Lestuh said:
Counting them all means it is effectively comparing to the first that week. Not that any choice would be right or wrong - it's just a consequence of daily YouGovs compared to larger intervals with other polls.isam said:
They all get counted.. unlike other cumulatives which are spoiled by one pollster dominating,I don't think it matters as much here as we are measuring the difference between each poll not averaging the pollsLestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll0 -
When it's at 250k+ net a year, it's about numbers too. That rate puts a lot of pressure on infrastructure and services, and can cause quick social change.taffys said:Is there polling evidence for this?
They want immigration filtered, not reduced.
The main parties see immigrants as all the same. But for voters, who live amongst them, they are very different. Many are fantastic. Others not so.0 -
Have two. SPUD and Peeled SPUD. The former includes all polls, the latter excludes the best and worst change for each partyisam said:
removing the best and worst changes should remedy thatRobD said:
Yeah, it makes up almost half the change. Excluding it, Tories are only down 0.6% on average. Not great, but not as bad as the non-averaged numbers suggest.Anorak said:
I think SPUD is an interesting way to look at things. I think starting the series with the correction to the wacko ICM outlier is as bit bloody cheeky though!RobD said:
I'm just terrible at mental arithmeticisam said:
Yes fair point, that's why I say how many polls the total is based on really, so people that want to do so can doRobD said:isam - Perhaps divide the change figures by the number of polls?
It would be pretty useful. You'd see your values converge to a weekly average as you get more polls. 0 -
A 2020 result could be like anything you can think of, but it most probably won't be.taffys said:''A 2020 result could be something like: Lab 227, Con 280, SNP 50, UKIP 37, LDs 31. You could get a Con-UKIP-DUP government. ''
Its extremely unlikely but I wouldn;t totally rule out Con/DUP/UKIP this time around...I just get the hunch the public want UKIP to have some sort of say, even if its a very minor one.0 -
Are you trying to wind me up now??Philip_Thompson said:
Which is it? 7 polls or 7 pollsters? Two different things.isam said:
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.
It would be +10 -
That would be great, I am happy to share my thunder!RobD said:
If you want I can add this to my PB polling google doc, it shouldn't take too long to add a column to compare with the previous result from the same pollster.isam said:
Wish I had started to do this earlier.. it would be possible, but time consuming to work backwards and compare the line with the betting moves I thinkStereotomy said:
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper
Or I can do this offline, and send you the results, don't want to steal your thunder!0 -
Bez has already made a dramatic impact as he forced Lancashire County Council to delay a fracking decision.This leaves the coast clear for him to come through with the anti-fracking majority.It's Bez who has the mo.0
-
Panelbase in Gold Standard modePulpstar said:Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 26s26 seconds ago
Panelbase poll LAB 34% CON 31% UKIP 17% LDEM 7% GRN 4%
0 -
Not really, this is greatly exaggerated.Casino_Royale said:
When it's at 250k+ net a year, it's about numbers too. That rate puts a lot of pressure on infrastructure and services, and can cause quick social change.taffys said:Is there polling evidence for this?
They want immigration filtered, not reduced.
The main parties see immigrants as all the same. But for voters, who live amongst them, they are very different. Many are fantastic. Others not so.
Internal migration and birth/death rates can cause just as much if not much more change in numbers on infrastructure and services. If I wanted to move (aka migrate) from Cheshire to London then doesn't that reduce the pressure where I currently live and increases it elsewhere? 250k is a lot but divided across the regions and put into context its not necessarily that much.
As for social change, by this many people mean the culture/religion/language etc which net migration is meaningless on. If a million natively-born Brits move to France/Spain/Australia etc and then a million move in from elsewhere, then that is zero net immigration. Does that mean there's no social change?0 -
No I'm not. First quote you said: "At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week," - is this 7 polls this week, or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Are you trying to wind me up now??Philip_Thompson said:
Which is it? 7 polls or 7 pollsters? Two different things.isam said:
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.
It would be +1
After Panelbase is that 8 pollsters or 7 or another number?0 -
Mark Reckless wins twitter spat with Stella Creasy #neverindoubt0
-
I only offer because I can back-calculate it to 2010isam said:
That would be great, I am happy to share my thunder!RobD said:
If you want I can add this to my PB polling google doc, it shouldn't take too long to add a column to compare with the previous result from the same pollster.isam said:
Wish I had started to do this earlier.. it would be possible, but time consuming to work backwards and compare the line with the betting moves I thinkStereotomy said:
Yeah, I only asked between those two options because they both seemed equally legitimate to me. Wasn't implying any sleight of handisam said:
Honestly there are no traps! It is as simple as thisStereotomy said:
And if it's the latest, is it the difference between that one and the previous one this week, or that one and the one from last week?Lestuh said:
Is it the latest YouGov that get's counted? Or the first one that week?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
I measure the difference between scores from each poll and the last poll carried out by the pollster.. I haven't had occasion to worry about same pollster/diff newspaper yet, but will prob compare to the last one from that pollster and newspaper
Or I can do this offline, and send you the results, don't want to steal your thunder! I'll work on it offline, and send you a PM when it's ready. 0 -
It's in inverse PB Golden Rule mode.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Panelbase in Gold Standard modePulpstar said:Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 26s26 seconds ago
Panelbase poll LAB 34% CON 31% UKIP 17% LDEM 7% GRN 4%
0 -
I said 7 polls and it is 7 polls.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not. First quote you said: "At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week," - is this 7 polls this week, or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Are you trying to wind me up now??Philip_Thompson said:
Which is it? 7 polls or 7 pollsters? Two different things.isam said:
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.
It would be +10 -
Kettering-no chance.Barnesian said:
Analysis suggests Cannock Chase is the first definite Labour but Loughborough or Worcester could surprise.shadsy said:Got a new market up at Ladbrokes: Labour Landmines.
Which will be the highest entry on this list to return a Labour MP?
So, if Labour fail in Kettering and Reading East, but win Enfield Southgate, then that is the winner and everything else on the list is a loser, irrespective of results further down.
Kettering 16/1
Reading East 16/1
Enfield Southgate 16/1
Glasgow Central 16/1
Watford 12/1
Great Yarmouth 16/1
Thanet South 10/1
Loughborough 16/1
Cambridge 16/1
Ilford North 12/1
Brighton Pavilion 16/1
Bristol West 16/1
Sheffield Hallam 16/1
Bermondsey & Old Southwark 16/1
Worcester 16/1
Cannock Chase 16/1
Birmingham Yardley 16/1
Renfrewshire East 16/1
Harrow East 16/1
Stockton South 16/1
Wirral West 20/1
Croydon Central 20/1
Broxtowe 20/1
Hampstead & Kilburn 20/1
Bootle 33/1
But Reading East-some chance0 -
0
-
You try and do something reeeeeeally simple, don't you, and a host of pedants and nit-pickers just have to spoil the whole thingisam said:
I said 7 polls and it is 7 polls.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not. First quote you said: "At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week," - is this 7 polls this week, or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Are you trying to wind me up now??Philip_Thompson said:
Which is it? 7 polls or 7 pollsters? Two different things.isam said:
Yes that's rightPhilip_Thompson said:
I see. Is it 7 polls or 7 pollsters?isam said:
Yes that's itPhilip_Thompson said:
Right so if a 1% change is shown by 6 different pollsters then that shows a 6% change rather than 1%?isam said:
Its the aggregate changes on the week calculated by comparing each poll to the previous one from that pollster.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm curious how you've got this figure as I can't think of any poll that's had the Tories down 9 or 7, how are you calculating this?isam said:Oh please everyone accept my most humble apologies for not updating SPUD last night... I had a date would you believe?!
At close of play yesterday 7 polls had been published this week, and the SPUD was
Con -7
Lab -4
UKIP +7
LD +2
Green -4
After todays Panelbase, the scores are
Con -9
Lab -4
UKIP +8
LD +1
Green -4
But the UKIP fade/Tory campaign success "feeling" is the PB meme
One suggestion if you're open to it would be to divide the totals by the number of pollsters in your sample.
And, yes I agree. That's why I try to mention how many polls it is based on so people can divide by that if they like, to show an average per poll
If I understand your logic correctly, YouGov might have 7 polls in the week but they're only one pollster. If they're +1 seven times in a row then that's +7 for the week and is +7 for the pollster. But if they alternate eg +1,-1,+1,-1,+1,-1,+1 then over the week they're +1 for the pollster.
It would be +1
EDIT: See post after this one!!0
