politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember the 2009 Euro elections when ICM was the pollster

Stuart_Dickson said:

@JackW

As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....

Titters ....

That's a clue ....

So, we'll take that as a no: you did not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008.

Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?

Oh dear god !!

You really are being a dull fellow. You never asked me about all of 2008 until overnight. Your initial inquiry was about July 2008 - Asked and answered 4 times !!

The reason why you failed to find a UK projection for 2008 was that my ARSE was transferred to the US for the season of the presidential election.

You've also asked about the track record of my ARSE. The last two national outings for ARSE were last years US presidential election and the UK 2010 election :

2012 US election :

The final projection - "The JackW Swing State Nine", Electoral College and Vote Share :

State .. ARSE .. Actual ..

New Hampshire - O+4 .. O+5.5
Virginia - O+3 .. O+3.9
North Carolina - R+2 .. R+2
Florida - R+1 .. O+0.8
Iowa - O+4 .. O+5.4
Ohio - O+4 .. O+3
Wisconsin - O+6 .. O+7
Colorado - O+2 .. O+5.4
Nevada - O+6 .. O+7

EC - ARSE 303/235 .. Actual 332/206 .. ARSE narrowly incorrect on Florida 29 EC votes.

Vote Share - ARSE - 51/48 .. Actual 51.1/47.2

2010 UK GE

The Final Projection - Hung parliament - Conservatives largest party 305 seats.
Actual Result - Hung Parliament - Conservatives largest party 306 seats.

............................................

Make your own mind up.

richardDodd said:

the fact that the reported needless 13,000 deaths in the NHS from 2005-2010

Dear lord.

antifrank said:

In other words, instead of just gunning for Andy Burnham, tempting though it no doubt is for the Conservatives, they should be attacking Labour directly..

Yep - Burnham will get moved, (many years service to the country and party, time for a fresh perspective) Ed will make a non apology apology a la immigration and go back on the attack on the NHS

NickPalmer said:

An attempt to blame the problems of specific hospitals on a particular former Minister isn't going to seize public attention.

That's not the criticism. No one is blaming Andy Burnham for the original specific problems; the criticism is that he, or Labour in general, covered up the problems once they had been flagged, for party-political reasons.

The reason why this is causing such panic at the top of the Labour Party is of course very simple: they know they are vulnerable to the charges of spin and that they fostered a culture of bureaucratic box-ticking which ignored patients' needs.

RichardNabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

HMG still are making mistakes though.

Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.

There was no statement on Indyref, was there? If it's the comment I'm thinking of, you are extrapolating from an unattributed third-hand report of a private conversation.

As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.

Fair point Richard on Indyref, but have they issued a denial ( like Faslane ) haven;t seen it if they have.

On taxes yes we need to cut spending but a sensible chancellor will not paint himself in to a corner. While we all hope the UK economy is on the mend events in Europe are still fairly shaky so taxes may have to rise yet. In truth there was no reason for him to say anything, it's as if some pillocky spad just thought an announcement should be made for the sake of it. Sometimes just sitting back and enjoying the silence of Labour's economic arguments says much more than any press release.

@tim - Yes, tim. We haven't seen the report, but we have seen Andy Burnham all over the media, being ultra-defensive. Why's that, do you think?

@tim - No idea, let's wait and see.

Morning all

Right - so far as I can work out this 'Liverpool Care Pathway' was intended as a measure to provide comfort measures at the end of a patient's life and to not drag out the inevitable further than may be.

But under Labour's 'target' driven NHS system it somehow turned into a system that gave financial incentives for denying patients something as basic as water ! Even in a Dignitas clinic in Switzerland I doubt a patient would be denied water...

Andy Burnham can not defend this. He would be a fool to do so.

Edit: Who the hell decided financial incentives were a good idea with a scheme like this, money should never be a bonus factor when it comes to terminally ill patients. Disgusting.

Politically any chat on the NHS is to Labour's advantage. Just one of those quirks that publicity always benefits the market leader (straight bananas and it's a good day for UKIP) and on the NHS that is still powerfully Labour.

Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.

Peter Kellner on the ICM poll:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/16/are-labour-and-tories-really-level-pegging/

Roger said:

Politically any chat on the NHS is to Labour's advantage. Just one of those quirks that publicity always benefits the market leader (straight bananas and it's a good day for UKIP) and on the NHS that is still powerfully Labour.

Politically the Tories best hope is to keep the NHS out of the press so it disappears as a matter of public concern.

Politically, then, the best thing Labour could do is dig up more of the problems that have affected the NHS over the last few years, no matter why those events occurred.

@Stuart_Dickson wrote :

At no point did I request your final projection. It is your capacity to project a result 2 years before polling day which would have been nice to assess. But as you say that you have never done it before we will take yesterday's ARSE with the immense pinch of salt we would accord to any other "projection" this far out.

.........................................................

You simply can't stand the evidence.

You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging - quite a feat on one foot !!

You might have acted with a little grace. You might have said the ARSE has provided excellent results in the recent past and is worthy of more than a second glance now. A bigger man would have, but there lies your problem.

tim said:

@Carlotta

If you use HSMR data you'll get a figure of hundreds of thousands going back to 1948, you realise why don't you?

I'm unsure why people aren't talking about the excess number of lives prolonged at trusts etc. with below average HSMR figures.

Looking back at 2010 we can see just how bad Labour's predicament is. The leadership candidates Ed M, Ed B, David M, Andy B, Diane are looking less attractive as time goes on.

David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?

tim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

tim said:

@Carlotta

If you use HSMR data you'll get a figure of hundreds of thousands going back to 1948, you realise why don't you?

I'm unsure why people aren't talking about the excess number of lives prolonged at trusts etc. with below average HSMR figures.

I know why.
Because the people on here quoting the HSMR figures don't understand what they are doing.

Of course if they understood, as you say their will inevitably be 13,000 lives "saved" on the other side of the equation due to the very nature of the statistics.

I suggest you start trying to understand benchmarking and how stats are used.

Alanbrooke said:

Looking back at 2010 we can see just how bad Labour's predicament is. The leadership candidates Ed M, Ed B, David M, Andy B, Diane are looking less attractive as time goes on.

David M hasn't had a good week, Andy needs to go on sick leave, Diane -well best left alone- so that only leaves the two Eds. So the question isn't did they choose the wrong Miliband, but did they choose the wrong Ed ?

Wow Alanbrooke. Choosing between the two Ed's .... a bit like asking if you'd prefer to be knocked down and killed by a lorry or bus !!

JackW said:

You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging

Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.

@tim - Rather more pleased than you will be in 2015, old son. Still 10% off if you concede our little wagers, but the offer is likely to be withdrawn soon.

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

@Carlotta

"Peter Kellner on the ICM poll:"

Very interesting article.

Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?

"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."

He also says:

If its ‘don’t knows’, ‘won’t votes’ and those thought unlikely to vote, add up to more than half its sample, and thereby leave it so vulnerable to improbable fluctuations, is ICM really wise to poll only 1,000 people each time?

To be fair to ICM, the Guardian is not really in a position to pay for a larger sample size, and the Telegraph recently stopped paying for an ICM phone poll.

I disagree with Kellner about filtering for turnout, as I think not doing so introduces a systematic bias into the poll. Having more consistent poll scores is useless if they are consistently wrong. They may have a better reason not to filter by turnout - perhaps believing that people are not an accurate judge of whether they will vote or not - but its effect on the sample size is not a good reason to correct for a source of systematic bias.

Plato said:

@LIAMT

"Obsessing, however, about a number of "excess deaths", which is nothing more than a function of the statistics, and would exist regardless of the quality of care provided, is madness."

You wouldn't be saying that to someone's family who's loved one died unnecessarily which is the definition of an *excess death*.

The definition of an "excess death" is not someone who has died unnecessarily, and that is precisely the reason why it is impossible to identify individual "excess deaths" from general figures for say an NHS trust. So you are once again clouding a serious debate with emotional rhetoric, but doing so badly.

OblitusSumMe said:

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

@Carlotta

"Peter Kellner on the ICM poll:"

Very interesting article.

Yes - he defends the YouGov "not filtering for turnout" which OGH criticises them for on the basis that it leaves them with substantially bigger base sizes - a question of "swings & roundabouts" perhaps?

"YouGov’s figures are also prone to be out of line. But we have two advantages. First, because we poll larger samples and don’t filter for turnout, our voting intention figures are based typically on around 1,200 respondents naming a party. This does not completely remove the risk of a ‘rogue’ poll, but it does make sudden violent sampling shifts less likely. Secondly, because we publish voting intention figures five times a week, it quickly becomes clear if one of our samples is wonky. Unless it conducts an extra poll, ICM will not publish further voting intention figures until mid-August, and therefore won’t be able to verify or correct its latest findings."

To be fair to ICM, the Guardian is not really in a position to pay for a larger sample size.

Which will tend to give them more "rogue" polls and front page "scoops":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/tories-labour-ukip-guardian-icm-poll

They have probably written the August headline already "Tory lead collapses as [fill in scandal du jour]"

Well that CPI release could have been worse. Unfortunately it probably means Carney will have more ammo to push for more easing. When bad, but relatively good news, becomes very bad news.

@tim
Fortunately, I have to go out. I also watched with resignation Seth's magnificent and determined efforts to explain Lansley I, II, and (falteringly) III. I don't have the perseverance.

Neil said:

JackW said:

You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging

Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.

Indeed Neil.

What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.

I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??

Titters ....

Generally, any talk about the NHS is usually beneficial to Labour unless we see that magic word ... "cover-up".

If there is a smoking gun that suggests AB ignored or censored data because it was politically inconvenient, the story moves on to politicians. Although Labour will lose more, there will be collateral damage to all parties except for NOTA.

tim said:

Duncan Weldon ‏@DuncanWeldon
Tomorrow's labour market stats look set to be the 41st consecutive month of falling real wages. Longest real wage squeeze since the 1870s.

So Disraelis' Tory mob get kicked-out; Germany expands it's collectivism in Europe; and a bunch of proto-Lib-Dhimmies screw-up the economy. When will we learn the lessons of history....

scampi said:

Oh Lord - Enuf already about Scotland - booorrrriiiinnnngggg!

Better than the bilge you post , though that does not make it any good

@foxinsoxuk I agree politics is a dirty business, but these scandals do show how poor parts of the NHS have become under both govts.

More importantly while currently most people's experience of the NHS is ok the system is held together with sticking plaster.

There needs to be a radical rethink of healthcare provision - life expectancy increases, while procedures that were unthinkable 10yrs ago are very doable. This is great, but costs - in a world of limited resources we need to secure the best health outcomes for the available resources.

The problem is culturally the mindset is that "free" is what matters. Politics aside (excuse for doing nothing) we need a radical rethink.

A few thoughts:

1. Introduction of charges for GPs with generous rebates for those who need it. Why shouldn't a working adult with a decent income make a contribution to the cost?

2. Co-pays on medication again with rebates

3. A clear view on what the NHS does/doesn't do. Chronic treatment of medical diseases and acute treatment is what it should so. Hospitals aren't right for pallative care - the hospice movement is fantastic. Optional treatments (eg. cosmetic work, obesity treatments unless metabolic syndrome, IVF, tattoo removal, etc) - issue is not so much the direct cost (not huge) but capacity utilisation and the mindset it encourages

4. Focus: specialty care by specialists in a purpose-built unit. Take cardio - there is some great but expensive kit. Buy them in a few centres and use them 24-7 not everywhere and let them sit idle. And don't over spec - the Mx companies laugh at the NHS.

5. Move to a 7 day a week rota system. Lots of people have to work weekends. Operating theatres are hugely expensive in capital terms: uses them all day/all night, 7 days a week. Also look at procedure paks and other ways to reduce set up/break down time.

6. Build a proper social care system - a lot of occupants don't need to be in an expensive DGH. Local cottage hospitals are good for patients and families.

That's enough for now. The point is that we face a real challenge in healthcare and we need to get away from the old political bullshit. Privatisation bad! The NHS good! Labour bad! Tories evil! I must have my local A&E! Perhaps a cross-party Royal Commision? Too important to be left to politicans

Hidden in the Guardian's account of the ICM poll is a bit of important political gossip:

"A reshuffle in the ministerial ranks outside cabinet, which had been pencilled in for this week, now looks likely to take place in the autumn."

FluffyThoughts said:

tim said:

Duncan Weldon ‏@DuncanWeldon
Tomorrow's labour market stats look set to be the 41st consecutive month of falling real wages. Longest real wage squeeze since the 1870s.

So Disraelis' Tory mob get kicked-out; Germany expands it's collectivism in Europe; and a bunch of proto-Lib-Dhimmies screw-up the economy. When will we learn the lessons of history....

Fluffy, this time it's different as Tony would say. Can I interest you in some real estate investments in Detroit, AAA rated you know.

Stuart_Dickson said:

JackW said:

Neil said:

JackW said:

You've squirmed and twisted in the wind since you first put your foot in your mouth yesterday morning and then kept digging

Unlike tim, who having said that Stuart would unpick the truth constituency by constituency, quietly stopped his complaints when he realised how silly he was being.

Indeed Neil.

What I found odd was Stuart's insistence that the SNP gaining seats was so unlikely in that range within the context of very tight overall UK results. Had he forgotten the 70-74 elections when the SNP coming from far back rose from 1 seat to 7 to 11.

I also noted PB's other SNP faces were hardly rushing in to decry my forecast as wildly outlandish. I wonder why ??

Titters ....

Job done Jack. You've been taught your lesson. We won't be seeing any more daft SNP or UKIP projections from your ARSE this side of the next UK GE.

Just shows: you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Au contraire ....

I should block book some doctors appointments every month until May 2015. You'll need them !!

Plato said:

@Charles
That it has an appalling reputation is nothing to do with money but competence. The excuse that the NHS exists on some shoestring of goodwill that exists nowhere else, and all their staff are selfless saints is nonsense.
It employs over 1m people - they are no different to any large organisation.

The idea that one entity employs one million people is something more akin to an East European socialist state. Anyone remember what happened when the soviets nationalised their farms? Millions starved to death.

Plato said:

Desperate stuff

Chuka Umunna @ChukaUmunna
Running a nasty, personal smear operation against my friend @andyburnhammp, will not improve the Tories' lamentable record on the NHS

Douglas Alexander @DAlexanderMP
Very strong support for @andyburnhammp at Shadow Cabinet this morning in face of latest transparently party political attacks by the Tories.

He is in trouble then.

Did Ben Bradshaw tweet anything or is he in hiding hoping Burnham will get the blame and the storm will blow over ?

A special for our folk who would like to see a X-teenth Chinese Imperial rising:

...1. A large Chinese workforce, with relatively few local personnel mostly not employed in key positions…as I understand it in Africa the locals mostly provide unskilled labour and “domestic” services – cleaning, tending the grounds, running the canteen…not anything that either transfers skills or builds local expertise.

2. Many successful Chinese Enterprises are owned directly or at one remove by the PLA…the most notorious being the “regeneration” Company “developing” Tsinkiang Province in North West China which is directly descended from the Army Corps that “liberated” that area after 1949…is organised as Divisions, Regiments and Companies…and looks more like a Han Chinese take-over of a Turkic and Muslim Province than anything we would recognise as a Regional Development Policy.

3 Chinese Workplaces do routinely have an underlying Militia structure – armed and trained – and in some places those operations are pretty serious military units…it is my guess that will clearly be the case where things might turn nasty…look for a shooting war between a Chinese Building Site and local forces somewhere in Africa sometime this decade…

4. Thus, if China decides to give the Argentine these jets, they will be paid…much as the East India Company ensured they were paid once they got drawn in to local politics on the Sub Continent.

5. China is an Empire that turned from the Sea about five hundred years ago, but continued to expand on land for three hundred more, before it crossed swords with us and others nineteenth century…however in the post 1949 period it has made good practically all those losses, expanded further in Tibet, started settling diligent and loyal Han workers in areas never previously occupied by them…

6…and – finally – started building a serious Navy to back their merchant marine and exporting those same diligent and loyal workers overseas to exploit other people’s resources…the advantage to Kleptocratic Regimes in the “developing” world being that they cheerfully pay bribes and don’t care if you keep your enemy’s heads in the fridge provided you keep your side of whatever bargain you have struck.

Think on, as we Gloomy Northern Boys say…

The source. Think-on folks....

Charles said:

1. Introduction of charges for GPs with generous rebates for those who need it. Why shouldn't a working adult with a decent income make a contribution to the cost?

The working adult pays for the NHS through their taxes. There are two reasons I can think of to introduce a charge.

Firstly, one discourages demand. This might be a good thing, if it reduces the number of "worried well" seeing GPs, but might be a bad thing if it discourages people from seeing their GP until their cancer has advanced to a terminal stage.

Secondly, if one pays through a charge then it will be those on middling incomes that will be hit, as the better-off are already paying to go private, but can see their taxes reduced when those on middling incomes have to pay to see the GP.