politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The YouGov poll at this point in the 2010 race got the CON-
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The YouGov poll at this point in the 2010 race got the CON-LAB margin almost exactly right – should we be expecting the same of the latest poll?
After a spate of 1% LAB or CON leads the latest YouGov Sun poll breaks the pattern – level pegging
CON 33
LAB 33
LD 10
UKIP 12
GRN 5
Comments
-
Given the margin of error such coincidences are not indicative of particular predictive power. Still fun to pick them out, though.0
-
UKIP on Thursday will be sub 10%. Who gets most seats will be determined by where those few % go - if anywhere.0
-
It will be impressive if the Greens are on 5 too.....where will they go, or will they not vote?Stickytroll said:UKIP on Thursday will be sub 10%. Who gets most seats will be determined by where those few % go - if anywhere.
What OGH also neglects to mention was that the Lib Dems were 5 points out (23 act vs 28 poll).....0 -
FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
0 -
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
0 -
Just got back from Hull and I was struck on my journey up there by just how few Conservative posters I saw. I remember going up the A1 just before the 2001 election and it seemed like every field had a Conservative poster in it.0
-
It should be borne in mind that YouGov were polling Great Britain, rather than the UK as a whole. The results in Great Britain in 2010 were Con 36.97%, Lab 29.67%, LD 23.56%. The 2010 poll thus was somewhat wide of the mark. It underestimated the Conservatives by 1.97%, underestimated Labour by 1.67%, and overestimated the Liberal Democrats by 4.44%. If the same occurred at the 2015 election, on the basis of this poll, the share of the vote in Great Britain would be Conservatives 35%, Labour 35%, Liberals 6%.0
-
Of all the Scottish posters to ban, Easteross wouldn't have been on my list, let alone at the top of it (and no, I don't believe in banning posters unless they flout house rules or are abusive, so someone I can think of must be through at least 15 of their 9 lives.....)fitalass said:
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago0 -
I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.0 -
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 10s10 seconds agoStickytroll said:UKIP on Thursday will be sub 10%. Who gets most seats will be determined by where those few % go - if anywhere.
#UKIP % scores in Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week, split into Phone polls and Online polls. Updated for 1st May
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5954108890309468160 -
So is the difference in Tory lead between online & phone down to the difference in UKIP scores between the two?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 10s10 seconds agoStickytroll said:UKIP on Thursday will be sub 10%. Who gets most seats will be determined by where those few % go - if anywhere.
#UKIP % scores in Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week, split into Phone polls and Online polls. Updated for 1st May
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595410889030946816
0 -
Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model. IIUC this currently gives Lab leading by 0.5, although as last time it's probably getting a bit confused by Scotland pulling it in a pro-Lab direction: Last time there were too many Scottish by-elections, and this time too few.0
-
Carlotta
"Of all the Scottish posters to ban, Easteross wouldn't have been on my list, let alone at the top of it (and no, I don't believe in banning posters unless they flout house rules or are abusive, so someone I can think of must be through at least 15 of their 9 lives.....) "
I think accusing pollsters or experts of bad faith is as bad as it gets. For a site where accuracy is everything and where we benefit from so much expertise both within and without the one constant must be trust in the integrity of the pollsters and psephologists.
It's a regret that the Telegraph aren't as scrupulous or we might be spared Dan Hodges daily drivel
0 -
Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?0 -
Thanks for doing us a favour. Above Hull on goal difference now!tlg86 said:Just got back from Hull and I was struck on my journey up there by just how few Conservative posters I saw. I remember going up the A1 just before the 2001 election and it seemed like every field had a Conservative poster in it.
0 -
Final ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
150 minutes
....................................................
The eve of poll SUPER ARSE has been advanced one hour to 9pm on Wednesday0 -
Although, as pointed out down thread, these results were not particularly accurate when compared to the GB figures Mike is right that Yougov underestimated both of the main parties fairly equally and therefore got the gap between them very close. This should indeed cause those who have convinced themselves that the phone poll are not only more in line with their own desires but clearly preferable to pause.
And then, in my opinion, move on again. My biggest concern about Yougov this time around is that in many ways they are victims of their own success. Last time they had a large and new enough panel to be broadly representative which had not been exhausted by daily polling month after month after month.
We have had posters on here who have said that they have completed 3 or even 6 polls recently. One admires the perseverance of such posters whose political geekism marks them out as being in no way typical of the average Brit. We have also seen disproportionate numbers watching the debates and generally having an awareness that an election is on. I fear that their panel has become dominated by political partisans who will not change their position no matter what resulting in almost no movement.
The results are only 2 days away but I am fairly sure that they will show that this persistent tie (within MoE) that Yougov have given us for weeks now is not accurate. I expect the Tories to get the most votes. Whether this will be by enough to give them the most seats is harder to call. The answer would clearly have been no but for Scotland but now I expect it to be really close which makes the 80% probability on Betfair and the 25 seat lead on SPIN look out of line to me.0 -
Rod posted it here:Roger said:Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_4986060 -
I see that Nick Clegg is aiming to be the first to traverse the country from Land's End to John O'Groats without entering a non-Tory or SNP constituency,0
-
No.0
-
It's a worthy goal.OblitusSumMe said:I see that Nick Clegg is aiming to be the first to traverse the country from Land's End to John O'Groats without entering a non-Tory or SNP constituency,
0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 73 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.0 -
Rod made a summary of the various models as follows:edmundintokyo said:
Rod posted it here:Roger said:Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_498606
Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various models (with movement from last month)
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
I think he had previously advocated the L&N model which is now seriously out of step. What is clear, I think, is that models based on traditional swingback have completely failed this time out. One only needs to look at what Fisher was forecasting a few months ago to what he is forecasting now.
The reasons for this have been discussed at length but it seems reasonably obvious that the factors include:
The FTPA
The bias from previous results arising when the governing party thought they were on the up.
The failure of Tory support to collapse through the Parliament making the opportunities for swing back less.
In particular the almost total absence of Lab/Tory switchers.
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.
0 -
Interesting article on the international problem of low wages in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086-salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are-paying?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/whenwhatgoesdowndoesntcomeup
It looks like there is lot more to it than Polish builders and Slovakian barmaids. Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.0 -
Very sorry to hear @Easterross has been lost to the site .... even if he decided to vote against "Our Viscount" which of course should be a capital offence.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.
0 -
Major won in 1992 thoughDavidL said:
Rod made a summary of the various models as follows:edmundintokyo said:
Rod posted it here:Roger said:Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_498606
Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various models (with movement from last month)
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
I think he had previously advocated the L&N model which is now seriously out of step. What is clear, I think, is that models based on traditional swingback have completely failed this time out. One only needs to look at what Fisher was forecasting a few months ago to what he is forecasting now.
The reasons for this have been discussed at length but it seems reasonably obvious that the factors include:
The FTPA
The bias from previous results arising when the governing party thought they were on the up.
The failure of Tory support to collapse through the Parliament making the opportunities for swing back less.
In particular the almost total absence of Lab/Tory switchers.
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.0 -
Let us each and all demand his return.JackW said:Very sorry to hear @Easterross has been lost to the site .... even if he decided to vote against "Our Viscount" which of course should be a capital offence.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.
0 -
Well, if current polling is correct then (aside from Scotland-related issues) Rod's model based on by-election swing-back seems to have worked perfectly.DavidL said:
Rod made a summary of the various models as follows:edmundintokyo said:
Rod posted it here:Roger said:Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_498606
Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various models (with movement from last month)
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
I think he had previously advocated the L&N model which is now seriously out of step. What is clear, I think, is that models based on traditional swingback have completely failed this time out. One only needs to look at what Fisher was forecasting a few months ago to what he is forecasting now.
The reasons for this have been discussed at length but it seems reasonably obvious that the factors include:
The FTPA
The bias from previous results arising when the governing party thought they were on the up.
The failure of Tory support to collapse through the Parliament making the opportunities for swing back less.
In particular the almost total absence of Lab/Tory switchers.
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.
The problem was with models like Fisher's based on swing-back from opinion polls. These don't work well because opinion polls are always getting tweaked with the hope of better predicting elections, so the models try to fix things that have already been fixed. As a lot of people here said at the time, Fisher's was particularly nuts because half of polls whose bias his model was correcting for came from pre-1992, when pollsters got knocked on their collective arses and had a serious re-think.0 -
@rcs1000 - FPT:
"In will probably win because Out isn't quite sure exactly what it wants.
If Out was EFTA/EEA, then I think it would gain significant support from business, and would be able to say "We want to be like Norway/Switzerland".
My thoughts precisely. I don't know quite what Out are playing at.
If they want to win in 2017, they need to be forming a cross-party group *now* with a clear post-EU goal, and campaign relentlessly for it for the next two years.
Otherwise In will win. Comfortably. I'd say 60-40.
(PS. The plus side of a strong Out campaign, even for pro-EU reformers, is that such pressure would probably put even more steel into the EU-UK government negotiations, as they realised Out was a perfectly credible and possible outcome)0 -
Often there is a shortish period in the pb sin-bin (aka ConsHome) before being rehabilitated back on the site. I hope Mike will exercise his undoubted prerogative of mercy in this instance.JackW said:Very sorry to hear @Easterross has been lost to the site .... even if he decided to vote against "Our Viscount" which of course should be a capital offence.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.0 -
OGH can look after himself, but clearly traducing the reputation of either a pollster (criticising their methods is fair game - impugning their motives, not) or someone like John Curtice is not.Roger said:
I think accusing pollsters or experts of bad faith is as bad as it gets. For a site where accuracy is everything and where we benefit from so much expertise both within and without the one constant must be trust in the integrity of the pollsters and psephologists.
The mystery remains why one Scot can do this repeatedly ("Unionist lickspittle" was one of the kinder ones) and carry on posting, another not....0 -
Some of the pollsters are going to end up with a bloody nose come election day. Noone can be sure which ones it will be. it could be all of them.0
-
Fear not!foxinsoxuk said:Interesting article on the international problem of low wages in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086-salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are-paying?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/whenwhatgoesdowndoesntcomeup
It looks like there is lot more to it than Polish builders and Slovakian barmaids. Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.
Ed will fix it!
Starting Friday.......0 -
Both Easterross and Socrates should be reinstated and encouraged to return posting here. They are both grave losses to the site.
Let's face it, we all wind each other up on here at times. And some of us get close to crossing the line, particularly when there are big issues at stake.
When boundaries are crossed, the individual concerned should be big enough to apologise, recognise where they might have gone wrong, and, after a period of time, for that apology to be accepted by those transgressed, and the hosts, so we can all act like grown-ups and move on.0 -
They're very clear what they are againstCasino_Royale said:
My thoughts precisely. I don't know quite what Out are playing at.
What they are for is a lot less clear.
We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
0 -
'In' will win for basically the same reason that AV lost: the majority of people don't give a toss, and they will see this as a referendum that has been staged for reasons of political expediency rather than as a response to a popular groundswell.Casino_Royale said:@rcs1000 - FPT:
"In will probably win because Out isn't quite sure exactly what it wants.
If Out was EFTA/EEA, then I think it would gain significant support from business, and would be able to say "We want to be like Norway/Switzerland".
My thoughts precisely. I don't know quite what Out are playing at.
If they want to win in 2017, they need to be forming a cross-party group *now* with a clear post-EU goal, and campaign relentlessly for it for the next two years.
Otherwise In will win. Comfortably. I'd say 60-40.
(PS. The plus side of a strong Out campaign, even for pro-EU reformers, is that such pressure would probably put even more steel into the EU-UK government negotiations, as they realised Out was a perfectly credible and possible outcome)0 -
PPP would be a better international comparison than USD. Cost of living is higher in the UK than the USA.foxinsoxuk said:Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
I'm not sure that a relatively high minimum wage is a good thing. As the article says, minimum wages create unemployment. Higher minimum wages create higher unemployment.
0 -
Fair points and the tweaking has not stopped. I wonder if Yougov regret their rebasing in January yet.edmundintokyo said:
Well, if current polling is correct then (aside from Scotland-related issues) Rod's model based on by-election swing-back seems to have worked perfectly.DavidL said:
Rod made a summary of the various models as follows:edmundintokyo said:
Rod posted it here:Roger said:Edmund
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model"
Is that something you have calculated yourself or has Rod posted that result somewhere?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/498606/#Comment_498606
Current forecast 2015 Tory leads from various models (with movement from last month)
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
I think he had previously advocated the L&N model which is now seriously out of step. What is clear, I think, is that models based on traditional swingback have completely failed this time out. One only needs to look at what Fisher was forecasting a few months ago to what he is forecasting now.
The reasons for this have been discussed at length but it seems reasonably obvious that the factors include:
The FTPA
The bias from previous results arising when the governing party thought they were on the up.
The failure of Tory support to collapse through the Parliament making the opportunities for swing back less.
In particular the almost total absence of Lab/Tory switchers.
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.
The problem was with models like Fisher's based on swing-back from opinion polls. These don't work well because opinion polls are always getting tweaked with the hope of better predicting elections, so the models try to fix things that have already been fixed. As a lot of people here said at the time, Fisher's was particularly nuts because half of polls whose bias his model was correcting for came from pre-1992, when pollsters got knocked on their collective arses and had a serious re-think.
One of my reservations about a model based on by elections is that there are so few of them these days.0 -
The Yes campaign did pretty well considering where they started, so I don't think the fact that they used a given tactic is evidence that it's a bad tactic.CarlottaVance said:We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
I don't think I agree with rcs1000 on the tactics here; The biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is a big blank canvas that people can project whatever contradictory things they want onto.0 -
I agree about PPP, and the Euro's current weakness makes a difference too. Interesting to see how other countries are grappling with much the same issues.anotherDave said:
PPP would be a better international comparison than USD. Cost of living is higher in the UK than the USA.foxinsoxuk said:Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.
I'm not sure that a relatively high minimum wage is a good thing. As the article says, minimum wages create unemployment. Higher minimum wages create higher unemployment.0 -
I see 'legitimacy' is being flung around with gay abandon.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11582077/Nicola-Sturgeon-UK-Government-illegitimate-without-Scottish-support.html0 -
Quite so.JohnO said:
Often there is a shortish period in the pb sin-bin (aka ConsHome) before being rehabilitated back on the site. I hope Mike will exercise his undoubted prerogative of mercy in this instance.JackW said:Very sorry to hear @Easterross has been lost to the site .... even if he decided to vote against "Our Viscount" which of course should be a capital offence.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.
Let us hope that OGH didn't put on the PB black cap but rather has sent @Easterross to the cells to cool down for his contempt of court.
A permanent political death to ConHome must count as cruel and unusual punishment which OGH as a fully fledged sandal-ista would of course be totally against.
0 -
To have a real chance of winning, 'Out' need to locate someone who will be like Blair Jenkins.
That is, someone who is not a member of a major political party, and is preferably even on the left (someone like Alan Sked)
I don't think a campaign led by Farage (or a similar polarising figure) will get over 50 per cent of the vote. In fact, I don't think it would even get over 30 per cent of the vote.
0 -
Which is one reason that referenda are a bad form of government.ThomasNashe said:
'In' will win for basically the same reason that AV lost: the majority of people don't give a toss, and they will see this as a referendum that has been staged for reasons of political expediency rather than as a response to a popular groundswell.Casino_Royale said:@rcs1000 - FPT:
"In will probably win because Out isn't quite sure exactly what it wants.
If Out was EFTA/EEA, then I think it would gain significant support from business, and would be able to say "We want to be like Norway/Switzerland".
My thoughts precisely. I don't know quite what Out are playing at.
If they want to win in 2017, they need to be forming a cross-party group *now* with a clear post-EU goal, and campaign relentlessly for it for the next two years.
Otherwise In will win. Comfortably. I'd say 60-40.
(PS. The plus side of a strong Out campaign, even for pro-EU reformers, is that such pressure would probably put even more steel into the EU-UK government negotiations, as they realised Out was a perfectly credible and possible outcome)
They are also (like AV) a way of kicking an unpopular government (or at least the LD part of it) rather than grappling with the real issue at hand.0 -
Isn't that what Yes did in Scotland?edmundintokyo said:
The biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is a big blank canvas that people can project whatever contradictory things they want onto.CarlottaVance said:We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
And were ground down by simple pragmatic things like 'currency'......0 -
The Independent backs continuation of LibDem/Tory coalition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-325859300 -
The unkind say cough non-dom Lebedev ruled out Labour.....logical_song said:The Independent backs continuation of LibDem/Tory coalition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-325859300 -
This is the moving average chart of YouGov's GB polling that I produced for the 2010 election, with the final data points representing the actual UK election result. Click to enlarge...
0 -
James Bartholomew's "welfare of nations" tries to compares different approaches to the welfare state.foxinsoxuk said:
Interesting to see how other countries are grappling with much the same issues.anotherDave said:
PPP would be a better international comparison than USD. Cost of living is higher in the UK than the USA.foxinsoxuk said:Interesting to see that minimum wage in UK, median and mean wages all compare well internationally.
I'm not sure that a relatively high minimum wage is a good thing. As the article says, minimum wages create unemployment. Higher minimum wages create higher unemployment.
For reducing unemployment (the closest he gets to wages) subsidising new hires of long-term unemployed is apparently better than subsidising low wages (tax credits/personal allowance).
0 -
Perfect timing!
YouGov asked the EU in/out question today.
Referendum (vs mid Apr)
In: 45 (-)
Out: 33 (-20
Referendum post David Cameron deal:
In: 56 (-1)
Out: 20 (-2)
And for a final time of asking - who is to blame for the cuts:
Current Coalition: 30 (+2)
Prev Lab govt: 38 (+2)
So, Labour narrowed the gap from double digits to high single digits, but never closed the gap, let alone reversed it.....
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/avpu0igaec/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-040515.pdf0 -
You calledCarlottaVance said:
Of all the Scottish posters to ban, Easteross wouldn't have been on my list, let alone at the top of it (and no, I don't believe in banning posters unless they flout house rules or are abusive, so someone I can think of must be through at least 15 of their 9 lives.....)fitalass said:
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago0 -
Away you useless Tory halfwit , you would not recognise a contribution if it slapped you on the face. Keep your personal hatred of me out of it you whinging halfwit, stick to talking mince about Tory surges.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.-1 -
The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
I have just laid no overall majority at Betfair at 1.09, one of the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen in a betting market. (The mid-price, 1.085, gives an implied probability of 8% for an absolute majority. Well they did say gambling is a mug's game! I am happy to risk £90 to gain £1000 if CON or LAB get an absolute majority.)
That 2am Betfair price on a Tory plurality, which is the same now at 8am) - I make the implied probability 83%, not 80%. 1/1.205 = 0.830 to 3 s.f.0 -
Thank you for proving her point......malcolmg said:
Away you useless Tory halfwit , you would not recognise a contribution if it slapped you on the face. Keep your personal hatred of me out of it you whinging halfwit, stick to talking mince about Tory surges.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Hope Mr. Easterross and certain others who have departed might return.
Still undecided over how to follow the election (ie when to start viewing, whether to have a siesta and go from 10pm onwards, or go to bed and try to get up around 2am and so forth).0 -
The halfwit deserves it , she cannot insult people with impunity.CarlottaVance said:
Thank you for proving her point......malcolmg said:
Away you useless Tory halfwit , you would not recognise a contribution if it slapped you on the face. Keep your personal hatred of me out of it you whinging halfwit, stick to talking mince about Tory surges.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.0 -
Fascinating Matthew d'Ancona profile of Cameron;
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/the-trials-of-david-cameron0 -
To no one's great surprise, from the BBC website ...
"Fresh evidence has emerged that authorities in Rotherham were warned about child sexual exploitation in 2003 and again in 2006.
Police and council officials took no action despite being told organised gangs were grooming and abusing girls.
Ex-South Yorkshire Police drugs analyst Angie Heal said she "cannot fathom" why her reports did not lead to action."
Dr Heal is about the only in the country who doesn't know why. But it's yesterday's news, now gone and forgotten.0 -
??John_N said:The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
I have just laid no overall majority at Betfair at 1.09, one of the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen in a betting market. (The mid-price, 1.085, gives an implied probability of 8% for an absolute majority. Well they did say gambling is a mug's game! I am happy to risk £90 to gain £1000 if CON or LAB get an absolute majority.)
That 2am Betfair price on a Tory plurality, which is the same now at 8am) - I make the implied probability 83%, not 80%. 1/1.205 = 0.830 to 3 s.f.0 -
Since those in charge of the exit polls have said 'they might be rubbish'.......Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Hope Mr. Easterross and certain others who have departed might return.
Still undecided over how to follow the election (ie when to start viewing, whether to have a siesta and go from 10pm onwards, or go to bed and try to get up around 2am and so forth).
Last time I got in Pink Champagne was in 1992.....and that turned out alright in the end.....0 -
My Jacobite equivalent of M, the head of MI5 - JISM (Jacobite Intelligence Services Mastermind) advises me the short break in PB reception this morning was caused by the vast number of my ARSE adherents trying to access PB before its final incarnation in its normal form at 9:00am this morning.
Be patient my followers, the ARSE will be revealed in its full splendour very shortly.0 -
I'm not sure what you're querying, Pulpstar, but if it's the last figure, then being able to back the Tories getting most seats at 1.20 and lay them at 1.21 gives an implied probability of 83%, the reciprocal of 1.205. (That's also, to 2 significant figures, the reciprocal of 1.20 and 1.21, so there are no two ways about it.)Pulpstar said:
??John_N said:The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
I have just laid no overall majority at Betfair at 1.09, one of the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen in a betting market. (The mid-price, 1.085, gives an implied probability of 8% for an absolute majority. Well they did say gambling is a mug's game! I am happy to risk £90 to gain £1000 if CON or LAB get an absolute majority.)
That 2am Betfair price on a Tory plurality, which is the same now at 8am) - I make the implied probability 83%, not 80%. 1/1.205 = 0.830 to 3 s.f.0 -
I suspect it’s not forgotten in the area, or universally. It would be unjust to convict a dog on thge word of SYP. If indeed they bothered to investigate properly in the first place.CD13 said:To no one's great surprise, from the BBC website ...
"Fresh evidence has emerged that authorities in Rotherham were warned about child sexual exploitation in 2003 and again in 2006.
Police and council officials took no action despite being told organised gangs were grooming and abusing girls.
Ex-South Yorkshire Police drugs analyst Angie Heal said she "cannot fathom" why her reports did not lead to action."
Dr Heal is about the only in the country who doesn't know why. But it's yesterday's news, now gone and forgotten.
Sadly, as you imply no-one is able to do anything seems to care.0 -
Currency was a serious problem for them, but the issue wasn't that they hadn't settled on an answer, it was that none of their answers were very good. Despite that, the Big, Blank Canvas approach gained them about 10% over the course of the campaign. That speaks to a highly effective strategy: Not enough to overcome the underlying weakness of their position, but still something that other campaigns would be wise to imitate.CarlottaVance said:
Isn't that what Yes did in Scotland?edmundintokyo said:
The biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is a big blank canvas that people can project whatever contradictory things they want onto.CarlottaVance said:We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
And were ground down by simple pragmatic things like 'currency'......0 -
Interesting article , especially for southerners..http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/05/labour-snp-union-breakup-uk-nationalists?CMP=share_btn_tw0
-
It would be very interesting if some agency or a politics or sociology department somewhere could fund a big poll in the run-up to an election asking people "how much trust do you have in the voting predictions made by pollsters?"
The reporting error would be bigger even than it is in the non-meta polls, but still.
That polls do have such a big influence - the "8 out of 10 owners say their cats prefer it" factor - works against healthy conscious discussion and consideration. No surprise that they are banned for a period before elections in some countries.0 -
That's not the Gambler's Fallacy, the Gambler's Fallacy would be:John_N said:The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
Angus Reid made a massive horlicks of the polling last time - does that mean it's their turn to be right?0 -
Miss Vance, at a guess, I reckon the polling shares might be accurate, but the seat totals could have a wide margin of error because it's so close and there are interesting effects likely (UKIP interference and the SNP potentially getting a landslide).0
-
RE: YG
Regarding questions on Austerity (cuts), it is noticeable that 48% say it is good for the economy and 58% say it is necessary.
40% say that Austerity (cuts) has not had an "impact on my life" whilst a further 15% are DK - so really 55% have not noticed any effect.
Do this explain the new Approval of -8?0 -
Presumptuous, I know, but .... what exactly is the ARSE ?JackW said:My Jacobite equivalent of M, the head of MI5 - JISM (Jacobite Intelligence Services Mastermind) advises me the short break in PB reception this morning was caused by the vast number of my ARSE adherents trying to access PB before its final incarnation in its normal form at 9:00am this morning.
Be patient my followers, the ARSE will be revealed in its full splendour very shortly.
Is it based on a computer model, on soundings from activists, on private polling ?
I don’t expect you to moon.
But, I would be interested to know in general terms how you got your ARSE?0 -
That's ludicrous. He was a decent, sensible, thoughtful poster.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
Yes, I can understand the restriction on not accuse pollsters of fixing their methodologies to meet an agenda (they are, after all, businesses & that is probably a libelous claim). But surely that - at worst - 24 hours in the sin bin rather than a ban?0 -
I have to say that I regard my right to criticise any psephologists, forecasters, diviners, gurus, mind-readers etc as a fundamental right - whether they be using polls, the entrails of goats, tarots cards, crystal balls, the stars or any other method. These people may be of any standing, but academics are viewed with special suspicion as so often they will fit the figures to suit their own theory (and I have been an academic).
0 -
You make it sound like Yes were ahead to begin with.CarlottaVance said:
Isn't that what Yes did in Scotland?edmundintokyo said:
The biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is a big blank canvas that people can project whatever contradictory things they want onto.CarlottaVance said:We saw exactly this with SindyRef - no clear vision of what lay beyond 'Freedom from London'....
And were ground down by simple pragmatic things like 'currency'......0 -
If this poll is accurately representing the CON-LAB vote shares and can be translated directly to English marginals why is Ed Miliband visiting North Warwickshire at this stage? That should surely already be in the bag if they thought they were going to get the 3.5% swing implied by this poll.0
-
I think you are muddling up cause and affect there.DavidL said:
As a Tory it is a concern to me that governments that have hung on to the very end of their term have lost. Major in 1997 and Brown in 2010 are the examples. Admittedly a small pool but worrying none the less.
Where the PMs hung on to the end, it was BECAUSE the government was bereft of ideas and unlikely to be re-elected. They weren't dismissed because they held on to the end.0 -
I don't think so. One of the main reasons this is such a great site is that discussions are often informed by information Mike has acquired through the cultivation of close relationships with the main pollsters and academic experts. He really can't be expected to tolerate posters who continually impugn their integrity.Charles said:
That's ludicrous. He was a decent, sensible, thoughtful poster.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
Yes, I can understand the restriction on not accuse pollsters of fixing their methodologies to meet an agenda (they are, after all, businesses & that is probably a libelous claim). But surely that - at worst - 24 hours in the sin bin rather than a ban?0 -
as an aside, how accurate do we think that Betfair predicts is? my feeling is that there has been little relatively trading on the individual seats on the exchange, at least compared to 2010. is that because the other high street bookies have upped their game, the existence now of a BF sportbook where bets can be placed ? ?0
-
Oops - I've just woken up. You're right. I stand corrected! But it would be drawing a conclusion from far too small a sample, given that they all quote margins of error and that one gets it closer than the others one time means little.edmundintokyo said:
That's not the Gambler's Fallacy, the Gambler's Fallacy would be:John_N said:The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
Angus Reid made a massive horlicks of the polling last time - does that mean it's their turn to be right?
0 -
At this point, the largest % share looks almost a coin-flip, making the 20% Labour bet good trading value. There will be a few polls today which could easily point in either direction with random variation (I don't myself think anything is moving).
I don't know anything about anywhere except the East Midlands, but Labour is quite confident here, and has not given up even in Loughorough, where Morgan's lead in Ashcroft looked convincing. This will test the theory that ground game makes a significant difference - the disparity in numbers of activists is glaring on the ground here (except when there's a visiting busload, a typical Tory day has 10ish canvassers to Labour's 50ish), and the question is how much difference that makes.
I think it depends on overall turnout - if nearly everyone vaguely interested votes in marginals, it won't; if the rather lacklustre canmpaign depresses interest, it probably will. My guess is that turnout will be similar to last time but slightly down - I'm meeting a moderate number of people who say they find the campaigns "confusing" and can't settle on a clear preference, and I suspect most of those won't vote.
If you offer half a dozen predictive models, like Rod, it wouldn't be too surprising if one of them is right, but he did seem to favour L&N, whose 9.7% Tory lead looks rather unlikely. What was especially silly about it was its % certainty figures, which assigned 0% certainty two years out to reasonably plausible outcomes, whereas 0% literally means "impossible". Pooh.0 -
Casino_Royale said:
If they [Out] want to win in 2017, they need to be forming a cross-party group *now* with a clear post-EU goal, and campaign relentlessly for it for the next two years.
http://businessforbritain.org/
I can get you an invite to one of their events if you want.0 -
Edmund.
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model."
I found this on the thread you directed me to dated December. Were you being sarcastic?
RodCrosby
All to play for [for the Tories, Labour are already sunk]. If the Ashcroft movement since August is repeated between now and polling day, there will be a small overall swing TO the Tories, compared to 2010...
Flag Quote
0 -
It will be interesting whether the phone polls today and tomorrow move into line with the online polls or stay (mostly) in favour of the Tories.0
-
Did YouGov get Approval data from previous governments?Financier said:RE: YG
Regarding questions on Austerity (cuts), it is noticeable that 48% say it is good for the economy and 58% say it is necessary.
40% say that Austerity (cuts) has not had an "impact on my life" whilst a further 15% are DK - so really 55% have not noticed any effect.
Do this explain the new Approval of -8?
0 -
But he will vote SNP on Thursday, arguing that modern-day Labour no longer reflects his values, and that the SNP is closer to old Labour.malcolmg said:Interesting article , especially for southerners..http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/05/labour-snp-union-breakup-uk-nationalists?CMP=share_btn_tw
I'm sure he's right.0 -
My ARSE is the greatest general election predictor in the history of mankind and it is never knowingly undersold but assumes a presumption of total modesty as becomes its unrivalled position.YBarddCwsc said:
Presumptuous, I know, but .... what exactly is the ARSE ?JackW said:My Jacobite equivalent of M, the head of MI5 - JISM (Jacobite Intelligence Services Mastermind) advises me the short break in PB reception this morning was caused by the vast number of my ARSE adherents trying to access PB before its final incarnation in its normal form at 9:00am this morning.
Be patient my followers, the ARSE will be revealed in its full splendour very shortly.
Essentially the ARSE combines a group of economic, social and demographic data both nationally and on a constituency basis. Added to this is a mass of polling VI information, that is weighted according to previous pollster performance and other factors such as potential for differential turnout, leadership ratings and incumbency in a group of seats. A further input are the actual results from recent elections and lastly I apply the ARSE filter.
0 -
Firstly because nobody knows whether this poll is right, including Ed Miliband.AndrewP said:If this poll is accurately representing the CON-LAB vote shares and can be translated directly to English marginals why is Ed Miliband visiting North Warwickshire at this stage? That should surely already be in the bag if they thought they were going to get the 3.5% swing implied by this poll.
Secondly because even if this poll is right, there are still two days to go.
Thirdly because the seats don't all swing uniformly - some will go Lab by quite a lot more than the average, and some by less, even to the point of swinging in the opposite direction.0 -
According to the BBC they didn't back any party, but hoped that the coalition, if it continued, would be more liberal and less conservative.logical_song said:The Independent backs continuation of LibDem/Tory coalition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32585930
Selective interpretation, anyone?0 -
No, the gambler's fallacy is thinking outcomes are connected when they aren't. Dice and roulette wheels don't have form, horses and pollsters do.John_N said:The answer to the question that this post asks is "No". To say "Yes" would be a) to fall into the gambler's fallacy, and b) to show an ignorance of margins of error.
I have just laid no overall majority at Betfair at 1.09, one of the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen in a betting market. (The mid-price, 1.085, gives an implied probability of 8% for an absolute majority. Well they did say gambling is a mug's game! I am happy to risk £90 to gain £1000 if CON or LAB get an absolute majority.)
That 2am Betfair price on a Tory plurality, which is the same now at 8am) - I make the implied probability 83%, not 80%. 1/1.205 = 0.830 to 3 s.f.
The answer is no, though. When the self-selected samples disagree with the random ones, it's not a difficult decision.0 -
Moderatorsmalcolmg said:
Away you useless Tory halfwit , you would not recognise a contribution if it slapped you on the face. Keep your personal hatred of me out of it you whinging halfwit, stick to talking mince about Tory surges.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
This is uncalled for and should be deleted.
0 -
Of course. It is very easy for academics to fool themselves. They’re the easiest people of all to fool.Financier said:I have to say that I regard my right to criticise any psephologists, forecasters, diviners, gurus, mind-readers etc as a fundamental right - whether they be using polls, the entrails of goats, tarots cards, crystal balls, the stars or any other method. These people may be of any standing, but academics are viewed with special suspicion as so often they will fit the figures to suit their own theory (and I have been an academic).
Here is a famous example, courtesy of Dick Feynman,
"Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that."0 -
Edmund.
Sorry I've now understood. Ignore my last post.0 -
Not being sarcastic, I'm talking about his by-election swingback theory, not any of his other theories. Rod hasn't been as enthusiastic about by-election swingback as he was pre-2010. I think this is a mistake, especially after making allowances for Scotland-related problems that the model couldn't reasonably be expected to handle.Roger said:Edmund.
"Also YouGov's two-party share matches up pretty well with RodCrosby's spookily accurate by-election swingback model."
I found this on the thread you directed me to dated December. Were you being sarcastic?
RodCrosby
All to play for [for the Tories, Labour are already sunk]. If the Ashcroft movement since August is repeated between now and polling day, there will be a small overall swing TO the Tories, compared to 2010...
Flag Quote0 -
Labour's got an 'NHS Bombshell' (things in England will be as bad as Wales - ed?) and the Telegraph has a Labour bombshell:
The £200bn economic bombshell lurking in the Labour Party’s manifesto
Ed Miliband's commitment to set a legal target for decarbonising the UK power sector by 2030 is likely to cost upwards of £200bn, according to analysis conducted by the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11582173/The-200bn-economic-bombshell-lurking-in-the-Labour-Partys-manifesto.html0 -
Which essentially means he is worried that N Warwickshire will stay Conservative. Fair enough but, as the original poster mentioned, it does suggest he is worried re the seat.edmundintokyo said:
Firstly because nobody knows whether this poll is right, including Ed Miliband.AndrewP said:If this poll is accurately representing the CON-LAB vote shares and can be translated directly to English marginals why is Ed Miliband visiting North Warwickshire at this stage? That should surely already be in the bag if they thought they were going to get the 3.5% swing implied by this poll.
Secondly because even if this poll is right, there are still two days to go.
Thirdly because the seats don't all swing uniformly - some will go Lab by quite a lot more than the average, and some by less, even to the point of swinging in the opposite direction.0 -
It looks very much like being a mess.
Any views on Cameron's heart not being quite in it, and the possibility he might not be too unhappy at letting miliband have a stab at leading a weak and unstable government?
Is there a point where some tories might secretly hope that if they aren't going to clearly win, they might prefer to narrowly lose as next best?0 -
I don't recall Easterross doing that though?ThomasNashe said:
I don't think so. One of the main reasons this is such a great site is that discussions are often informed by information Mike has acquired through the cultivation of close relationships with the main pollsters and academic experts. He really can't be expected to tolerate posters who continually impugn their integrity.Charles said:
That's ludicrous. He was a decent, sensible, thoughtful poster.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
Yes, I can understand the restriction on not accuse pollsters of fixing their methodologies to meet an agenda (they are, after all, businesses & that is probably a libelous claim). But surely that - at worst - 24 hours in the sin bin rather than a ban?0 -
Probably coincidence but the releasing of the FoI request re Rotherham probably not that helpful for Labour0
-
Away you big jessie, go abuse your servantsCharles said:
Moderatorsmalcolmg said:
Away you useless Tory halfwit , you would not recognise a contribution if it slapped you on the face. Keep your personal hatred of me out of it you whinging halfwit, stick to talking mince about Tory surges.fitalass said:I wasn't around when it happened, but I believe it was because Easterross criticised OGH and John Curtice in a thread. I doubt my post on this subject will last the duration of this thread. But I feel pretty strongly about a decision like this on a site that allowed some pretty strong and prolonged abuse to some regular posters to go unchecked for years while being extremely thin skinned about any criticism of their own opinions. And especially after they have on more than one occasion tried to undermine particular posters like Easterross. At the end of the day, who has contributed more to the site on a regular basis, Easteross or MalcolmG?
FrancisUrquhart said:
Banned for what? I don't remember Easteross as a particularly abrasive poster or one that got into huge spats with anybody.fitalass said:FPT. "franklyn Posts: 31
May 4
We haven't heard from Easteross for a while; would value his latest insights"
Sadly, Easteross was banned from PB.com a wee while ago, some castigate him for a Scots Tory surge that didn't happen while totally ignoring fact that he got it right on Libdem seat drop at last GE. But you can still contact him via twitter @M Sutherland-Fisher to get his 2015 GE predictions.
This is uncalled for and should be deleted.0 -
I'll second that.PeterC said:
Let us each and all demand his return.JackW said:Very sorry to hear @Easterross has been lost to the site .... even if he decided to vote against "Our Viscount" which of course should be a capital offence.
@Easterross should have been allowed to continue posting on PB even as he was led up the steps of the gallows.
JackW - Fair, just and compassionate to the end.
Brother and sister in law thinking of voting tactically for labour in ed south. Ian Murray had done as good job with sorting out our local park my brother says! I'm desperately trying to dissuade them following the advice of rifkind and forsythe. They're yesterday's failed scots tories. Why anyone should listen to them is beyond me!0
.jpg)
