Have the LDs been hurt by Clegg’s GQ admission?
April 6th, 2008
Was this behind the worst ICM ratings for three months?
This morning’s ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph is good news for the Conservatives, good news for Labour but bad news for the Lib Dems. These are the shares with comparisons on the last ICM survey just a fortnight ago - CON 43%(+1): LAB 32%(+3): LD 18%(-3). The comparisons in the previous post were with the last ICM survey in the paper in early January.
The pollster’s methodology is usually the most friendly to the Lib Dems of all the firms and has been the only one to rate them at 20% or more since Clegg came in. Today’s 18% is a blow and is the first time since in early January that the party has slipped back into the teens.
Of course this might just be one survey and poll watchers will be looking carefully at the April Populus survey in the Times which should be out on Tuesday. Last time the firm had the Lib Dems on 19% - will that, like ICM show a drop?
For the real damage from the “no more than 30 partners” admission is that it shows Clegg to be naive and perhaps a bit too ready to talk about things that most people regard as being private.
The following was in the New Statesman last October, when Clegg was fighting for the leadership and features comment by the shadow minister for culture, Ed Vaizey after spending six gruelling days with Clegg trekking to the Arctic: “Nick’s a lovely guy but he’s terribly vain. For the entire trip he harped on about how he was number one in a Sky poll of ‘Most Fanciable MPs’ and that I was only number nine. We shared an igloo and the intimate, bonding evening chat was based on how good-looking he is. I was referred to only by my fanciability ranking of number nine“
My guess is that the interviewer, Piers Morgan, was aware of Nick’s readiness to talk about these areas when he led the questioning in this direction?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
if so the Libs can relax as that will be temporary. If your theory is right it seems LD retreat now benefits Labour.
O/T - US Presidential [ sorry to be O/T so soon, but I'm on Aussie time:-) ]
A useful article highlighted on RCP, about the various VP possibles. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9394.html
Notable by her absence from the long list of possibles is Kathleen Sibelius, long-time favourite. Er….. ?
I thought I read somewhere that ‘Soft’LD’s tend to split about 6 to 4 to Lab over Cons somewhere ?
Perhaps one glass too many perhaps - Mike ?
I seem to remember that LD ratings went up after the revelations about Ashdown’s extra-marital affair, so maybe any public contempt for Clegg is of the ‘all mouth and no trousers’ or ‘too much information’ variety.
Polling averages are “flawed”?
Surely you don’t mean the eagerly awaited WIND from JackW’s ARSE?
re 5. Yes even the great JackW’s ARSE is flawed in so many ways.
Firstly all the polls ask different question in a different order.
Each of them has its own unique statistical methodology.
The fieldwork took place at different times.
Sample sizes are not uniform.
Some use the phone, one uses face to face interviews while Yougov is solely internet based.
I have observed here before that a polling average is like taking 100 pears, 100 apples, 100 oranges and 100 lemons, weighing them all and then dividing the number by 400 to produce the average weight of fruit.
Whether the LDs have been hurt or not is of little import. Mrs Clegg has been hurt - that is unforgiveable.
If this poll putting the Socialists 11 points behind is GOOD news for Liebour, I’d love to hear BAD news.
re 8. The “good news” reference was to the fact that this was an improvement on the last ICM poll.
But the previous poll had a different sample size and took place at a different time
5 Do keep up. Jack W posted it at 10.35 last night…
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of a new ARSE poll of polls that comprises ICM, Populus, YouGov, CR and MORI that gives :
Con 40.2% .. Lab 32.2% .. LibDem 17.8% .. Others 9.8%.
The PISSED Wells/Baxter Index with added SOAMES weighting shows :
Con 312 seats .. Lab 260 .. LibDem 46 .. Others 32.
Con 14 seats short of a majority.
……………………..
Sources :
WIND ….. Whimsical Independent News Division.
JNN …… Jacobite News Network.
ARSE ….. Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
by Jack W (No Finer Construct On PB) April 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
There was an item on the radio this morning that suggested that Huhne would have won the leadership election had ballot papers that were delayed by the Christmas post been included in the count. If true, or even if believed to be true, it will provide a permanant problem for Clegg as long as both he and Huhne are around in the House - which might only be to the next election. I wouldn’t see it as being critically undermining, but for a party that likes to be seen as the most democratic and makes such a play of ‘fair votes’, it does present something of a legitimacy issue.
On the subject of averaging polls, it is true that any errors in the original polls will be carried through to an average, but surely we have to work on the assumption that the various firms must be getting somewhere near the mark, otherwise they wouldn’t be believed or commissioned. At the least, it provides a benchmark to judge which companies tend to produce results favourable to one party or another, or to apparently to provide a multiplier bonus to the lead of whichever party is ahead.
While it might not be statistically sound to treat any rolling average as a poll in its own right, on a practical level, I don’t have a problem with it. Unless there is a one-way bias in all the systems used, then an average should get somewhere close to the mark, and if there is that overall bias, then individual polls don’t get over that problem either.
You could make a similar argument about the election result predictors: that each seat is different and so applying a uniform UNS (or UPS, or whatever), shift to the votes doesn’t take account of these factors, which is true, but we work on the basis that the local factors will generally cancel each other out. It should be much the same with poll averages.
The polling averages try to do a different thing - measure the actual level of support in the country. It is no more “flawed” than using the seat calculators - ie. basically flawed but the best we’ve got. If all you’re interested in the monthly changes then you might as well go back to using polls like Mori’s “all naming a party” (40 Lab 35 Con last month)
MTF @ 11. Thanks. Am more of a casual observer in recent months than I used to be. I don’t get to read every post any more. Hope to rectify that soon, once the work on my house is finished.
Isn’t the other problem with polling averages that they cover a span of time (often indeterminate - as in the venerable JackW’s ARSE), and so to use Mike’s analogy, they average out different ways of counting pears and apples, as well as averaging out apples that used to be pears.
14 5I was only pulling your leg..
When its an good poll like this I read every post, when its not so good, I am a little less interested…
Mike, how dare you criticise Jack’s ARSE? Even if you don’t believe that the output is appropriate for accurate analysis on this site, it’s only fair to allow those who enjoy following the trends to indulge themselves?
And this is high risk from Nick Clegg - it looks careless and llows people to think he can’t be trusted on sensitive issues. It also undermines some of David Laws’ in particular good work on speaking out on stable families. However it shows real honesty, makes him look distinctive and just as importantly gets him in the news. So I imagine the LDs will come out fine out of this.
Surely any politician is vain, otherwise they would not become politicians, giving voice to their views as if they were always right. Can argue that anyone who posts on this site expressing their views as if no others matter are also vain, whether they hide their true name or not, (me included).
I suspect Clegg has got a potential hurdle out of the way, just one lover coming out in the News of the World during the elction would create issues.
I am suprised one of these hasn’t been traced this weekend, I was expecting at least one on a tabloid front page.
Lib Dems are down because the Cons are more popular when that poll was done, just accept it. Polls change, look at the daily surveys in the States at the moment
I know you have to ‘make the site newsworthy’ but my own ‘take’ on all these polls going up and down by 3 or 4 per cent is that their true margin of error is much greater than they would like their clients (or the public) to believe.
Once again one of the more illuminating articles to read is on this site. Well done Mike.
Looking at the polling stats and using Mike’s apples vs apples rule, the average ICM poll for each Leader are as follows:
Nick 19.61 (8)
Ming 19.63 (38)
The poll before each Leader was elected was
Paddy = 12, Charlie = 16, Ming = 21, Nick = 21.
There is no sign of a Clegg bounce.
re 12. The postal voting story over the clegg election is, as far as I know, correct.
The problem was not that people got their ballots in late but that the closing date was in the week before Christmas. What tends to happen is that freepost and business reply envelopes get held-up because they have to processed for PO revenue purposes.
So a whole batch, certainly well in excess of Clegg’s majority, arrived on the morning of the count. Huhne wanted them included - Clegg didn’t.
It was a pretty dumb time to end the election anyway. Everybody was so pre-occupied by Christmas that Clegg’s accession did not get much attention.
They should have waited until the Tuesday before the first PMQs of 2008.
Given the closeness of the election unless you really believe there is some huge bias for late votes tobe for Huhne there would have had to be many thousands of late ballots to have a chance of overturning the 500 majority.
I’m sure Rod will do the statistics for you…
15 - But that has the advantage of smoothing out short term spikes in support (in addition to rogue polls)
I wish Clegg well, but I’m sorry it wasn’t Huhne!
Interesting comment from Hutton.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/06/transport.transport
An incoming Tory government, faced with an, ‘economic crisis’ could be forced down the same route as Heath, ‘No Lame Ducks’ then its, Rolls Royce Aero Engines, and a prices and incomes policy.
22. Going from memory now, I think they said about 1300 ballot papers were delayed in this way. The feeling at the time was that Huhne was polling a good deal better than Clegg in the late stages of the campaign. Enough to overturn the majority? Possibly, possibly not, but quite possibly enough to throw it open to doubt.
re 19 At this stage I don’t regard polls as predictors of the general election outcome but as a major element in affecting the political environment. So it’s it’s not just the polls themselves that matters but how they are reported and the impact they have.
A quick “thanks” to Peter the Punter for his tip of Comply or Die for the National. I was a few quid in pocket! Wonderful name incidentally!
Dave (s) - Distinguish between personal vanity, which I am sure is much more the prerogative of TV personalities, “celebrities” etc (about looks, and, heaven forbid, sexual attraction) and political vanity, where people are convinced others look to them for answers to public problems and issues. This, by the way, is not restricted to those involved in national politics - turn the pages of any local paper, and you will hear from many with this condition!
The big news of the day is obviously this.
http://tinyurl.com/4srvhl
I’m sure Mike will ban anyone, who puts a caption, to the second photograph down: what ever is happening to the, ‘Mail’ these days.
The small fall in LD support has nothing to do with Clegg’s off-centre boast about his previous sexual adventures.
Pb.com always discusses a topical reason for a difference in results from a poll to poll. Occasionally, it is justified (eg the fuel protests 4/5 years ago). Usually, it is irrelevant. And if not irrelevant then, it will be a month later.
There is an odd paradox about pb.com. The less you are on it, the more you get out of it.
The Independent article is labeling Huhne as the real Leader of the Lib Dems.
http://tinyurl.com/6cpmxv
That could cause internal strife for Clegg.
They must realise things are bad.. (OT)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3690033.ece
Hitch has a go at, ‘Dave’ over drugs.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
32
Hitch is virtually never worth the read,. I usually give up after the headline.
26 - Yes, but that’s a slightly different argument, and one could be deployed when arguing against the aggregating of polls even when they were all conducted (as in the past) under very similar conditions.
Leaving aside the argument about “polls as predictors”, one could also take issue with your stance on other grounds. It is relevant to ask which is more important - variations from one poll to another, or trends over time. Aggregating polls is a very good way of showing trends over time, and it doesn’t matter if some have flawed methodologies (as predictors), as long as they generally can be expected to move together with trends. The primary purpose of aggregating polls is not necessarily to provide one big accurate poll. It is to reduce the impact of rogue polls.
In fact, despite your words, you do this implicitly all the time when you right stuff like
“this poll, if accurate, is very good for Labour/Tories/LibDems. It will be interesting to see if this trend is confirmed by other pollsters“
21. This is an extraordinary story. The party of ‘fair votes’ effectively elected its leader via a gerrymander. Clegg has no legitimacy.
News links section - BORIS vs KEN vs BRIAN
I’ve just put together a new links section for the race in the right hand column. If anybody has ideas for other sites then please let me know.
politicalpunter@gmail.com
If i turn up to vote at 11pm on General Election day then my vote doesn’t deserve to be counted.
Morning all
Have enjoyed watching the snow this morning - puts a lot of other things into perspective.
I’m sure the Tory-inclined on here would love to ramp up a huge internal LD crisis but I’ve not met anyone in the party who is remotely interested in going down that road. Yes, the Huhne supporters think Chris would be doing a better job but that’s natural.
I don’t know Nick personally - I don’t know what he’s like. I don’t really give Ed Vaizey’s account much credit - Vaizey isn’t a political friend so an opportunity to put the boot in will be taken.
I think Nick is still finding his feet as leader. I suspect he and his inner circle are of the view that the LDs have to get a higher profile. Perhaps he is following Smithson’s law regarding Cameron.
One other thought - in many ways, the LD leader has to be less collegiate than the PM or Leader of the Opposition by which I mean given the limited amount of press coverage, the Party has to make sure everyone knows who the leader is so every media opportunity to get recognition for Clegg has to be taken.
My personal view is the drop in LD support represents a small rally for Labour since the Budget. In six months we’ll know if it’s anything more substantial than that.
37. False analogy. These votes were cast on time; only post office incompetence prevented them from being received on time.
38, I agree there isn’t an internal crisis for the Lib Dems. They can’t afford one, if nothing else.
However, looking at Clegg’s two most newsworthy moments (the Cleggover moment which is amusing, and the EU treachery which is not) they’re both signs of very poor judgement. Early days yet, so there’s plenty of time for a recovery, but if he continues in this vein he’ll end up making Brown look competent.
39 And one more reason why voting in person is to be preferred to postal voting whenever possible.
As a previous Huhne supporter I wouldn’t support a recount or rerun - all the ballot papers received on time were counted and counted correctly.
The rules is the rules; Huhne finished strongly but peaked too late (and could have made a brighter start to his campaign.) No advantage in stirring it up now - sounds like the other parties trying to make trouble more than anything else to me.
42. Surely the only reason this story has surfaced now is because Clegg is faltering so badly. I would rather point the finger at the Huhne camp…
39 - What, all 1300 of them? I’d be surprised.
33
read everything!! particularly the stuff you don’t wanna read.
29 Must say I agree with David Kendrick’s comment. I guess the most likely explanation for the ICM figures is regression to mean. ICM have been at the top end of the Lib Dem range for a while, now they slacken. But they are now quite likely to show an increase next month.
On averaging, I think they work. Mike does have a point I think though in that an average with two yougov polls in it is not the same as an average with just one. So perhaps Jack W could get off his backside and calcualte the average using the last poll from each pollster rather than the last five polls?
33
Perhaps you won’t want to read this?
seant’s comments would be worthwhile!!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/04/what-is-john-ma.html
The Lib Dem fall in the polls is probably much more to do with the increased coverage that Labour and the Conservatives are getting because of the elections and the coverage of recent polls than any comment he made to GQ. Having said that, they don’t seem to be having a great month and Paddick has not done anywhere near as well as I had expected.
Karl Rove comes to London?
40 - I agree; both Clegg News Meoments have been caused by bad judgement and, maybe as Hague found out, that sticks. It won’t cause an immediate problem but if this is part of a longer term trend then Clegg has real problems.
46 - that would be pointless. Com Res only do them every couple of months
45. Nothing you post or link to is ever worth reading.
45,33, 32 True and maybe Hitch has a point on this.
He certainly at the moment doesnt like New conservative or New/Tired Labour.
45
I do usually, but with the Hitch, its going to be a rant…
Re; 50 - Naturally, the Tory tactic since (and even before) Nick became Leader has been to denigrate him and that’s fair enough. Politics is often about playing the man rather than the ball.
As I said, Nick is finding his feet as leader. I don’t consider his start to be much different from that made by either Charles Kennedy or Paddy Ashdown and every leader makes gaffes (including Cameron).
I’ve also said before that luck plays a huge part in a politician’s journey.
I suspect Nick will turn this round though the “Calamity Clegg” title is one that will take longer to shift. I do think that a couple of years into a Cameron Government will be the next opportunity for the LDs as the Tories hit their own mix of bad luck and unfulfilled expectation.
32 - But why are you posting this, coldstone? What conclusions do you expect us to draw from this article?
That Hitchens is out of touch with the modern Conservative party? That Cameron is soft on drugs? That we should all get behind Boris for Mayor? Or something else?
I don’t think Clegg’s comments are the underlying reason for the LibDem showing or lack of progress.
My assessment is:
*Labour are performing much poorer under Brown than anybody in the Labour party expected
*People have softened their antipathy of the Tories but there is still no great enthusiasm for them
*The is no real reason for soft Lab or Con voters to switch to the LibDems at the moment. Previously, despair with Tory infighting or Iraq prompted significant movements - these are absent now.
Overall, I do know that significant numbers of local Labour party members are coming to the realisation that letting Brown have a clear run for the leadership has been a disaster. Several, fairly well placed, local people are muttering just how poor he has been.
[47] I never thought I’d be concerned by the thought of the Tories losing members - and to be fair to ConHome, they’re only speculating about it - bit if the main opposition party, riding high in the polls against an exhausted government, isn’t continuously having to reprint its membership application form, something is very wrong.
Still, perhaps Tory party members here would care to post their branch/constituency association membership figures, as they stand to-day and as they stood last year?
I see my ARSE has had a fine old airing this morning and may I say it never looks better than when its fully revealed to public scrutiny and exposure !!
On the apples, pears and oranges argument, I say long live fruit cocktail !! …. More, with a dash of SOAMES I’ve created a Pimms of a political service that brings a little summer sunshine into our proceedings and is 100% proof that getting a little PISSED is the ultimate winter warmer on a cold political morning !!
…………………………
ARSE ….. Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
Why is this poll good news for Labour? OK, its not the absolutely dire 29% of the last ICM, buit 32% still means Labour is going nowhere.
Can’t see the “up to 30 lovers” thing doing much direct damage - there is ample evidence that people don’t vote according to their view of MPs’ sex lives. There is possible indirect damage, though - the perception that when “everyone” is worried about the economy, immigation, crime, whatever, the LibDems are busily gossipping about their sexual prowess. It’s not a fair portrayal at all - NC simply answered the questions put to him, and not in a boastful way - but the LDs are always suspected of being perpiheral to the main ‘who governs’ isuse, and this feeds that perception.
With my mathematician’s hat on, I agree with Mike that averaging polls, tempting though it is, obscures more than it enlightens. Every poll is itself an average, of curse, but calculated on the basis of carefully-weighted balances. To mix two or more of them makes the outcome more likely to be wrong despite the total sample being greater.
On a different subject, what effect do we think the widespread belief promoted by the tabloids that MPs are *all* crooks has on voting? It seems to me primarily likely to reduce any incumbency bonus (”always thought Fred was a decent bloke, but I suppose he’s looting the system too”) and depress turnout generally. It may vary by constituency too - the more flamboyant MPs will be probably more affected than, say, Dennis Skinner (who seems as financially austere as a Franciscan monk) or Oliver Letwin (who seems too modest to be buying Rols Royces from ill-gotten gains).
re 37. But it is very possible that many of the 1300 uncounted voted could have been posted up two weeks beforehand. That’s how Freepost works.
When the closeness of the result was apparent Clegg himself should have realised that the legitimacy of his victory could at some point have been challenged and called for the full count.
Failing that Rennard should have insisted on it - after all it was he who was responsible for the dumb timing of a postal ballot.
58
It would be far more intersting to see Labours membership figures. I suspect they have nosedived bigtime
re 60 Thanks Nick for your comments on poll averaging.
On your final para I have been meaning to write a post on that very subject. Could we get a reverse incumbency effect? I hope for your sake that it does not happen in Broxtowe - but in Bedord??
The Libdems have been hurt ever since Vince Cable decided not to contest the leadership.
He has been proved correct over the Northern Rock scandal,which will just run and run until Gord calls it a day.
Things are looking distinctly Rocky…
Economist: Northern Rock | What Lies Beneath
“The nationalised bank’s mortgage book looks less than healthy. Whereas many of its rivals were slowing their lending and looking for safer customers [in 2007], Northern Rock had put the accelerator down and was taking on ever-riskier clients. The value of loans on its books worth 95% or more of the property’s value almost doubled; indeed, those worth more than 100% quadrupled [including the infamous 125% "Together" mortgage]. Northern Rock’s rush to write risky mortgages also embraced the buy-to-let market. But the buy-to-let market may be especially vulnerable to a downturn. Estate agents reckon that many landlords are letting out properties at a loss and that the value of newly built flats is plummeting. More worrying still, NR’s repossession of homes is three times the average.”
56,Many Conservatives are out of touch with Cameron`s Conservatism.
Maybe Hitch speaks to them.
The perception to many will be that because of Camerons previous actions, regarding drugs, they are unsure what his position is.
However it will not go away completley, because there will always be speculation especially when he becomes PM.
There were always people who tried to get possible stories regarding Blair.
Hitchens is an extremist. If he ever had the ability to seize power (praise god he never will) this country would quickly become a dictatorship. In Hitchens world, anyone that disagrees with him seems to be evil and nasty and out to destroy the nation.
Moreover, he is become more and more desperate as his forecast for the last 10 years or more, of the imminant death of the Tory Party is quite clearly not going to come to fruition. His predictions are going to look incredibly silly come the next general election.
Many Conservatives are out of touch with Cameron`s Conservatism
Nothing like sweeping claims, unsupported by any evidence, to start the day.
Re: 61 - I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mike. I appreciate aspects of the ballot weren’t done well but we can’t keep raking this over. As with the infamous “hanging chads” in Florida, it shows the limitations of any democratic process.
We simply have to move on, Mike, but I do agree lessons need to be learnt and the process reviewed and improved.
Re: 64 - I’m as much a fan of Vince as anyone else but he had the far easier job of being a caretaker leader. He didn’t have the pressure or the expectation or the micro-analysis of every syllable that goes on at sites like this. He remains one of the party’s gratest assets and long may be continue to serve to illustrate just how lightweight his Conservative counterpart is.
56
I thought it was interesting, conclusions? draw your own.
52
The follow up, proves you wrong.
62
Labour has always found it difficult attracting members, and always lagged well behind the Conservatives. Labour at its peak, in the mid-fifties, had about 800,000 which looks impressive, until you compare it to the Tories 2.8 million!! What would any party give for figures like that today.
The political party, (as we know it) is in terminal decline, nothing can save it.
Meanwhile …. there is concern in the Smithson household that Mike’s excessive sampling of pollsters apples, pears and oranges has gone a little too far !!
http://www.bobbyworks.com/images/fat%20man%20at%20computer.jpg
69, I disagree with that.
I don’t think membership figures for any party will rise substantially in the near future, but they could later on.
The reason why they could and should increase is because of a return to ideological politics, where a political philsophy informs policy, rather than a policy being crafted to fit in with the Zeitgeist and headlines of tomorrow’s tabloids.
Because all three parties are largely crammed onto the centre ground it’s unsurprising membership is falling.
“With my mathematician’s hat on, I agree with Mike that averaging polls, tempting though it is, obscures more than it enlightens. Every poll is itself an average, of curse, but calculated on the basis of carefully-weighted balances. To mix two or more of them makes the outcome more likely to be wrong despite the total sample being greater.”
Any other mathematicians offer a second opinion on this? Seems dubious to me.
Re: 66 - It’s rare I agree with you, GIN, but this time you’re right.
Hitchens speaks to a minority - quite a large minority but still a minority - of what I would call the “fearful”. These are the people, who often live in suburban or rural areas, who think the cities are full of packs of feral teenagers and every other person is a freeloading immigrant. One might argue that they have been forcefed the Mail’s own propaganda and believe it to be true.
For them, Hitchens speaks the truth - politics died in November 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was ousted. They have a romanticised idyll of what England was like before “the blacks” came and when you could beat respect into children. England circa 1955 I would think.
Hitchens speaks to these frightened social conservatives who see their “world” faling around them (or so the Mail tells them).
In this view, Cameron is colluding with Brown to hand Britain over to the EU where criminals run free and liberalism is triumphant.
Anyone seen seanT this morning ?
Re: 73 - Agree with most of that. Morris, but just one thought. How many members fo these non-centre ground parties really have - how many in UKIP, BNP, Greens, Respect, English Dems etc ?
I suspect falling membership effects ALL parties.
69 - Do you really think that Hitchens would be speaking approvingly of Cameron if he adopted Boris’ stance?
72. Hitchens seems to dislike Thatcher as well. He thinks the worship of her is stupid and that she was part of the plot to destroy the nation. Infact, I’ve never read Hitchens say a good word about ANY politician. Even Churchill would be an enemy to Hitchems, due to his post war surrdender to leftist ideology of the welfare state, etc…
Meanwhile II …. For Clegg the atheist, it was Christmas wot wun it’ for him :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/meet-the-real-leader-of-the-liberal-democrats-805230.html
8
There are sadly no socialist parties in the UK. NuLabour is so close to the Tories in policy terms as to be statistically insignificant.
Cameron is younger than Brown and looks prettier on TV; that appears to be the main difference. As for the LDs, since the boy Clegg came on to the scene they have turned into the UK’s third Tory Party.
Malcolm
Re: 75 - It’s easy to just criticise any and every politician and being anti-politics is fine if you’re not accountable to anyone. Hitchens plays that role superbly.
Back in the real world, running a Council or the country isn’t easy and I do think at times people who are so dismissive of politicians ought to try it themselves for a month to see what it’s really like.
72. Your description of this vast army of KKK-style rural dwellers is as laughably cliched and inaccurate as are the views on city dwellers which you ascribe to them. The reality is that Hitchens speaks for a very small group of nutters, most of whom long ago decided to vote (if at all) for the BNP or UKIP.
Meanwhile III …. ‘The Independent on Sunday’ assesses the state of the Clinton campaign :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-campaign-on-the-skids-as-aide-is-forced-to-apologise-805257.html
78. Weirdly though, Hitchens doesn’t like the BNP or UKIP (for various reasons) Hitchens really is a one man band, that dreams that one day a party that reflects all of Peter Hitchens’s views and opinions will suddenly materialize as if by magic, and actually get into power, and because all of the main parties have died, it will stay in power forever and ever.
63: Reverse incumbency is a bit strong, I think, unless the style of the local MP feeds speculation - driving around in a Rolls, living in a gigantic house, etc. Your Bedford MP doesn’t strike me as that sort of chap. But it clearly isn’t good for incumbents. Constituents who know you generally give you the benefity of the doubt - MPs commonly report people saying to them, “It must be awful for you to work with all those crooks” and the like. But that’s the direct feedback from people who know the MP, and the reality in many constituencies is that at least half the voters would struggle to say who it is.
That said, the leaders of the anti-politician pack are the Tory tabloids, and the stories also feed the perception that it’s no good voting for anyone, which isn’t good for challengers either.
Re: 78 - Disagree entirely, Jeff. If the constituency was as small as you claim, the MoS wouldn’t give Hitchens a whole page. As for how Hithens’ readers vote, most are probably Tory followed by UKIP I would think.
Oh, re membership - I think Labour’s is now pretty static. We have a trickle in and a trickle out, but most people are just letting the direct debits carry them on. We had a boomlet when GB took over, but now a typical month is +2/-2, and those are mostly people moving in or out of the constituency.
71: I’m not a mathematician, but thinking about Mike’s example of taking 100 pears, 100 apples, 100 oranges and 100 lemons, weighing them all and then dividing the number by 400 to produce the average weight of fruit, I can think of plenty of times when that would give you some useful information. Botanists studying the effect of CO2 levels on fruit production, supermarkets trying to find out whether consumers are tending to buy bigger fruit…
If you’re looking for a snapshot of the general position at a given time and people have different methods that all make sense but come up with different results, you might well want to just aggregate them and take the average numbers - although if you’re confident that method x is better than method y then obviously you’d want to give it more weight.
Actually, the problem here is more when you’re watching what happens over time; If you got 100 of each fruit every month you’d get quite a good picture of the overall trend that would smooth out sampling error (Tories up 5%, Labour down 3% or whatever) but in fact people don’t poll at consistent, regular intervals, so some months you’ll get 50 apples and 150 lemons, and other months you’ll get 200 apples and no lemons at all. Hence the warning, when you’re comparing polls, to stick to comparing ones from the same pollsters.
Did`nt Hitchens follow kinnock allover in the 92 campaign and at a news conference one of Kinnock`s aides lost it.
Believe he supported Major in that campaign.
He does speak to people who hate the
85, contd Blair Cameron style of politics.
We seem to have lost some posts Mike ??
81. When it was announced that Boris would be fighting Ken for the mayoralty, the general consensus was that the contest would be great for turnout. Obviously, it’s too early to say that won’t be the case, but I rather suspect that it won’t.
The huge negative coverage that politicians have got in general plus the character heavy/ policy light coverage of the London elections, will make many people ambivalent about turning up to vote at all. It’s the ‘crook or the clown’ sentiment that will depress turnout. On balance , I think this is unfair to both Ken and Boris who have both now started to talk a lot about policy and to offer a real choice of direction. Whether it’s enough to increase turnout I don’t know.
84 - “Hence the warning, when you’re comparing polls, to stick to comparing ones from the same pollsters.”
Which of course goes without saying, and is Mike’s usual complaint, but as you acknowledge is not the same as aggregating. It is perhaps true (using your example again) that weighted aggregating should be treated with caution.
80. Quite true; Hitchens is very much an eccentric, individual voice. But the slavish way in which left wingers on this site latch on to his rantings is very instructive. He represents what many of them desperately want to believe they are fighting.
Ever since Cameron was elected, the left wingers on this site - especially among the Lib Dems - have been loudly predicting a mass exodus of support from this imaginary horde of right-wing extremists. Most laughable of all have been the widespread predictions of a UKIP surge.
Nothing of the sort has happened of course. Conservative people are small-c conservative as well. They rather like posh leaders, and are instinctively suspicious of loudmouth, demagogic figures - hence their loathing of Kinnock. Despite having right wing instincts on immigration and other topics, they are also sceptical of people offering ‘easy’, extreme solutions.
70 - Membership of all political parties has been falling since the method of collection came into force.
I can remember as a child my father in the 1960’s paying a shilling (5p) a week to a collector from the Labour Party - so 60p a year. I have no idea what it is now, but somewhere around 36 pounds and you have to pay it by post. We all know that if someone collects money on a regular basis, it is more difficult to say no, as you get to know the collector.
The Conservatives were the same, but collected annually. Back in the 1950’s I think it was 2/6 (12 1/2 p), then 5 shillings, then a pound. Ok, some paid more, but most paid the set amount. Today it is 25 pounds, again collected by post.
I have no idea about how the Lib Dems collected in the past, but I suspect it was not very different.
The Labour Party then started collecting subs direct from Newcastle and that took the local connection even further away from the personal contact on the doorstep.
The Conservatives sort of tried that with national membership, but seem to have given up and instead taps members of Constituency Parties a couple of times a year.
As all charities have realised you get more money by direct mail, than the charity street collections, which is why most charities wither no longer do street collections or just once or twice a year. The Poppy appeal being the odd one out.
All political parties had more members 50 years ago, but how many of them were active members. My father did nothing other than pay his sub each month and chat about football for 5 minutes.
Yes there was a social life for those that wanted it. Things have changed. Even television is better these days ! Just think of the huge number of working mens clubs that have closed down in the last few years.
As for membership drive. Who would go on a doorstep and ask for 25 or 36 pounds. Or more to the point, who would have that sort of money in spare cash. Most of the doorstep subscriptions were paid in cash, people would take the pound note or whatever from the pocket - it was like giving to a charity street collection.
I cannot see membership of poltiical parties increase by much. Certainly, I am sure that there is much potential out there to recruit members in safe Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative seats that currently have a low membership. But those who already have between 1000 and 2000 members will no, in my view, see any real increase.
One of the biggest problems that all political parties have suffered from are deaths ! Those people who have been members since the shilling days are now dying off and are not being replaced by the younger voters.
Have been shadowing this website for many months -sometimes with admiration for the political knowledge of the contributers,occasionally with annoyance at people like Roger whose comments make my blood boil.Anyway i have finally decided that i must respond briefly to Stodge’s comments at 72 wherein he refers to Britain circa 1955 before the blacks arrived.Yes for nostalgic reasons i preferred the country then to now because multicultruism/political correctness has destroyed this country especially since 1997.
90 “Conservative people are small-c conservative as well.They rather like posh leaders”
67″ nothing like sweeping claims, unsupported by any evidence to start the day”
Mike. I have difficulty with the references to some pollsters favouring one party,one another, as if it is in the nature of things. Hypothetical case- a pollster is known to favour one party, indicating a close run GE- the GE is a landslide for the other party- the pollster continues using the same bias after the election( Harris was cited re 1992) Surely this situation would lead to all pollsters reviewing assumptions, resulting in a general coming together of all polls- unless they were influenced politically by their clients? And this is not supposed to happen(perhaps I am being naive.)
Having just seen the very impressive brian paddick on sky news i wonder why boris doesnt offer him a leading role in the post ken administration. paddick is clearly a credible and sensible bloke who would bolster the boris campaign and ensure the odious ken is defeated.
Nick Palmer for two years the Labour party line has been that all parties and politicians are the same. How often have you or your colleagues said ‘if the Tories were in government they would do the same’. Or have attempted to highlight Tory transgressions as mitigation of your party’s faults.
Blaming the Tory press for having swallowed this line is hypocritical.
95. Tigger I rather liked his line when asked about the “Cleggover” business - words to the effect of “I’ve slept with fewer women than Nick Clegg”. Boom boom.
92. Well try having a look at the polls Dez. I know you and your friends desperately want to believe the world reflects your own distorted prejudices, in which most Tory voters are closet BNP supporters and the public at large hate ‘Toffs’, but these views simply have no basis in any of the available evidence.
96 yes that was very funny. do you not think that as an ex senior copper he would add a great deal to the boris administration and effectively kill off any chances the disgrace that is ken would have?
71,84. Mathematically speaking, Nick Palmer is correct.
If the only error were random error, then averaging would reduce error by increasing the sample size. But, the problem is that there are different systematic errors, as the selection effects from each pollster are different.
Suppose pollster A has a reliable method and pollster B has unreliable method. Averaging A’s results with B’s contaminates the sample with B’s dirty data and so gives poorer results.
I have also found Nick’s mathematics to be sound — he should have stuck to it.
I’m sure that if Brian Paddick had wanted to serve under Boris he wouldn’t be standing as the Lib Dem candidate!
[88] Dunno what these policy differences are between Boris and Ken.
98. Not sure, but flying that kite this side of the election would surely be a no-no for both Boris and Brian (but for different reasons obviously).
Observer main story -”Controversial plans for pupils in comprehensive schools to sign up for military drills and weapons training are being backed by Gordon Brown in an attempt to improve the relationship between the public and the armed forces”
Perhaps the introduction of the swastika was just a few months early.
84 “… you might well want to just aggregate them and take the average numbers - although if you’re confident that method x is better than method y then obviously you’d want to give it more weight.”
But, I suppose the problem is that there is no algorithm for assigning the weights, so you would end up basically guessing them. In which you case, you might as well guess the end result!
100 understand but it would sort out second preference votes and ensure a boris/paddick victory. paddick is just a celebrity (!) candidate and could add a great deal to the running of london.
re 93. one reason that ICM tends to produce better Lib Dem shares is in the wording of its questions. ICM put it this way “The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other parties would fight a new election in your area. If there were a general election tomorrow which party do you think you would vote for?”
MORI put it simply “How would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?
The COMRES question is “If there were a general election tomorrow, would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or some other party?”
Populus ask “If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?”
I very much prefer the two stage ICM approach
99% of those polled would have never heard of that magazine interview. Most people don’t spend much time thinking about politics or reading about it.
84, 103 Edmund in Tokyo.
I’m coming round to your point-of-view!
Maybe you can determine the weights empirically, if there is enough historical data to compare with true election results and if the polling methodologies and questions from the different organisations have remained stable over that time.
(Probably doesn’t apply to the case in hand, though).
105.
Mike Do they always mention the Conservatives first or do they move them round ?
On the main topic, I don’t think anyone’s noticed.
The most damaging story is of course the one that shows Clegg should not now be the leader and that he didn’t win the majority of votes, Huhne did.
You can’t override the democratic system in such a way without losing a moral rectitude. If lib dems can’t propose, and embody, the fairness of democracy then what’s the point?
68 - Stodge, the problem with chalking it up to experience is that, to voters like me, Clegg stole the election and so now does not have my support as leader of the party that I wish to vote for.
Righting a wrong later would be too late for some MPs in their wish to retain their seats (or candidates to win them).
Mike 105.Thank you for your comments.My question(badly put) was more about honest(?) pollsters correcting their methodology after the main event (usually a GE but perhaps even May 1st)shows it to be flawed.Harris was apparently the only pollster to call 1992 correctly,so what did the others do about it? Apparently very little.
105. To me, MORI/Populus seem like “fairer” questions, as they are 100% genuine, no-added sugar, the pure unloaded question - “who will you vote for?”
However, opinion polls are about accurately predicting an election result (not asking neutral questions!) so I have to put my purism away for the sake of accuracy!
Quick question which may have been answred elsewhere but I have scanned briefly through the threads and not seen it.
Am I missing something (entirely likely) or are there 2 different numbers being quoted for the Conservative increase in the same poll here.
The previous thread followed the Telegraph headline and had the Tory lead up 6 points on the last ICM poll in January. But this thread has the Tory lead actualy down 1 point (Tories +1 and Labour +2)
Sorry if I am being thick but I am confused.
100. No, not many people do because the press aren’t reporting them. There are big differences though on affordable housing, buses, open spaces, green belt, airports etc. However, why bother taking the time and effort to report on those when you can just talk about a youtube video of someone singing about Boris?
Sorry, that should have read Tory lead down by 2 (Tories +1 and Labour +3)
79. good to see that odious mark penn in a bit of trouble
Okay, just reread it all properly and saw what I missed about the comparison with 2 weeks ago. Sorry folks.
113. Ah it’s all the fault of ‘the press’ again. These constant bleatings are as sure a signal as any that Labour are heading rapidly back into opposition - mentally they are there already.
99 - I don’t think that argument is valid unless you know which pollsters are reliable in advance.
118 (con) - bear in mind that the context in which Mike makes his complaint is one where he is only interested in looking at movements, and not so much at absolute %s of support (because “polls aren’t predictors”). As a said above aggregating polls to assess movements is fully justified, as long as you can be reasonably sure that the trends across the pollsters will be consistent, because it will filter out rogues and very short term movements in support.
113 - Why do you have a username which is a lie? With posters like Yellow Peril you know they are being ironic but yours is so sloppily constructed it makes you into an outright liar. Presumably you know that the phrase ‘Tory troll’ is an attempt to con people into thinking you are a tory supporter, otherwise it wouldn’t be announced by use of the definite article.
If you want to be taken seriously (which you may well not want to be) then change your name to ‘Trolling the tories’ or some such. At the moment you are just someone to be passed over, if you can’t tell the truth in your name then what you post is taken as equally worthless.
117.My original point was that the commentary that there is ‘nothing between them’ is unfair on both Boris and Ken. Coverage of the race in the papers has been mostly superficial with a warring of press release rehashes on both sides. I wasn’t saying this is worse for Labour or for the Conservatives, just that it makes people apathetic about the whole contest and that turnout may therefore be low.
120. Calling people you don’t know ‘outright liars’ doesn’t inspire much confidence either.
Believe me. I have no desire to be thought of as a Tory.
Last year, during their leadership, crisis I took serious flak from various Lib Dem supporters for suggesting that it didn’t matter who their leader was, it’s the policies that needed attention.
I think a total flatline in the polls having tried out no less than three leaders since the last election is proof that the leadership is not the problem.
Until the Lib Dems find a new cause they are destined to drift sideways. Relying on picking up people voting against the Tories is just not going to work in 2010.
120. Not fair. Yellow peril, aka Scallywag, Commentatore and about 1000 other names, comes on this site with a new name, often multiples, per day, for his posts so that he can’t be tagged with disapproval. TTT sticks to his. Yes, a silly handle but he will take criticism (like yours) when dished out. Scallywag hasn’t got the guts. To my mind he gets credit for being identifiable, at least.
97, What available evidence ?
It is yourself what believes in the distorted prejudices of others.
Where is the evidence that people rather like posh leaders that you quote.
More likley the polls reflect a tired government,and are considering a management change, rather than any outdated ideology you hold.
122 - Then why do you use a name which is a lie?
If you lie in your username then you are a liar, pure and simple, at first I couldn’t work out why a supposed tory was always attacking the tories. The reason became clear is that you deliberately lie in your username to try and con people.
I’d say the same for anone calling themselves, labour or lib dem troll or whatever.
It’s the same warped psychology as the idiots who change names. It seems you are a journalist, however, so maybe lying is just second nature to you. If you aren’t a liar then you’d have a more truthful username.
Morus and Socrates:
How about Mark Warner?
Pros:
He’s from the key white male demographic, he has gubernatorial experience, and seems to have a good record of economic competence. He’s southern as well and has a history of working with Republicans.
Cons:
Running for senate and could get a step closer towards the magic 60 seats. Adds nothing to Obama on National security (but a large bonus to the economy).
126. When i first came onto the site, i mistook you for a UKIP supporter because of your handle.
Gwynfa@99,107
“Maybe you can determine the weights empirically, if there is enough historical data to compare with true election results and if the polling methodologies and questions from the different organisations have remained stable over that time.”
Right - and informally we do this all the time. For example, people who have been following the US primaries would tend to ignore or under-weight ARG and over-weight SUSA.
BTW even imagining the case you mention at 99 with one good pollster and one duff one and assuming you have no idea which ones are which, using an average will work out better _half_ the time than just picking one… The crappy polls from B will contaminate the good poll from A, but in the same way the good poll from A will mitigate the crappy one from B.
Obviously aggregating the thing with well-informed weightings will give you better results than just totting up numbers and averaging them. And mixing in all kinds of other well-informed conjecture - things like “this week the Wright affair may have freaked out white voters but they may be afraid of seeming racist to the pollster, so I believe his robo-polled Rasmussen score over the human-polled Gallup one” will work even better. But totting up numbers and averaging them still gives you a useful number - better than nothing, and also better than picking a poll at random and ignoring all the others.
124 - He’s on the same, low level, as the name switchers, if one rung higher. What’s the point in keeping the same name other than it being a deliberate attempt to con those who are reading it? Politicians and journalists, may not understand this of course.
You did, of course, make your own name change far too transparent for it to be anything other than obvious.
124. Goodness you seem to be obsessed, now. Calm down luv, it’s only a website.
128 - UK does happen to be our country and doesn’t belong solely to the fringe nutters of UKIP.
Tory on the other hand is quite specifically in the UK (country again) restricted to meaning the Conservative Party.
128 - There’s a missing ‘i’ in there! The name is one I use on American forums, hence the UK reference.
124. Goodness you seem to be obsessed, now. Calm down luvvie, it’s only a website.
128. That suggest illiteracy, or at best dyslexia. Not an intention to deceive.
126. I’m not quite sure why I’m bothering to explain myself to somebody who is being so abusive to me but here goes.
The original intention was along the lines of trolling the tories or some such name, but I started off with this name and I’m stuck with it now. It is the only one I use and as Test says people who come on here a lot know my views. It was never intended to trick anybody, it was just an ironic playful name thought up in a few minutes that has stuck. If I was starting again I would choose another one but there you go. A least people can have some comeback on the things that I say.
130. No matter what name Mrs. Test used, it would be obvious who was writing the posts. The shrill and pompous tone, and the incredibly simplistic world-view, would be unmistakable.
The new James Hewitt. Total cad. Gentlemen don’t count, let alone divulge. I imagine he’s nailing five new chicks a week and needs a good cover story.
130 see Scally again at 133? I switched, once, out of worry for anonymity, but always had a recognisable and stuck-to handle; and as soon as somebody said were you X I said yes. So only a wish to be more anon, not to deceive or flee from criticism as YP/Scally does.
I agree with you that TTT is an annoying hanle however, but as long as he’s got the guts to stick to one it’s a million times better than the coward who won’t.
134 - Well, if you don’t change it, you will be seen as someone who is trying to con people by using a name which is not a true reflection of your views.
Of course, keeping the same name makes this harder for you because of that which, in a masochistic way, is admirable but why allow yourself to be seen as someone who misleads?
137, 134 rather than be like Yellow Peril (two handles in two posts, cf133 and 135 why don’t you (TTT) pick a new handle, and announce it is you assuming it. Then you won’t look like some saddo trying to pretend he is multiple posters. When I switched names, for example, I didn’t post as Commentator as well as Test in an attempt to look like two people - I just switched names.
137.I don’t think I am seen that way. It’s just a name. If I found out you lived in France i wouldn’t think any less of you. However if you go around calling people liars and conmen just because they’re journalists and have a bit of a crap moniker then maybe I would think worse of them.
On the averaging of polling, it all depends what you want to measure. If you are trying to get a more accurate opinion poll, you are mistaken for the reasons that Mr Smithson and others have pointed out.
However, if you want an average view of what opinion pollsters believe to be the state of current public opinion, it is entirely valid. This seems a potentially useful piece of information (on a “wisdom of crowds” approach). I note that the Economist has been averaging economic forecasts for many years for just this reason.
the sight of british police intervening in the torch run is somewhat disgusting. whhy should the police give a shit that a publicity scam on behalf of the chinese olympics attracts protesters? they are not breaking any laws in protesting at a vacuous publicity stunt surely?
58 Can’t say it comes as a surprise personally.
As discussed previously , despite the polls, a huge swathe of the activist base hate the current direction of the party.
As long as DC is riding high in the polls though he’s safe. No-one is going to rock the boat and have the finger pointed at them for being disloyal.
If the Polls turn down, the knives will be out in a flash.
No sign of that on the horizon though, he looks set fair.
As I mentioned yesterday, he’s been a very lucky General so far with both Lab & LD’s doing their very best to go to dust before his very eyes.
134 – It’s a bit rich complaining of being personally ‘abused’ when your user name is deliberately constructed to offend others.
I once asked you, quite politely, why you had chosen that particular name, you regarded that as a personal attack then too.
I do not believe you chose that name wishing to deceive others as mentioned above, but it is dishonest, you are not a Tory or a Tory Troll, you are a Labour supporter but ironically not a Troll.
143. As I said it’s a shit name, but I’m not trying to offend anybody. Having said that I may change it for the purposes of this site. Maybe just TTT. Anyway, I’m sure everyone’s as bored with this as I am.
139 - I dislike any manner of misleading voters, leaflets which try to look like they are from another party and with selective use of figures (yes, I do dislike the lib dem use on this), spin in all its forms and so on.
As for journalists and politicians, I think the above paragraph should give you a good idea as to my position on them.
I use the word lie as a fact, not as an opinion, I wouldn’t use it otherwise. You are not a tory yet your name proclaims that you are a tory, that is a lie. It’s hardly something that you can deny.
143 “Labour lover” perhaps (not to go all Clegg on him)
Regarding the possible drop in membership numbers for the Tories, there is a signifcant factor that needs consideration..
I understand that the Tories put their membership fee from £15 to £25 recently. Anyone who only paid £15 is no longer classified as a Member, but instead as a Supporter.
PS interesting that you’re a journalist, something we hadn’t known before.
There you go I’ve changed it. Better?
146. I have no love of Labour. Didn’t like Blair, like Cameron even less, disappointed by Brown and indifferent to Clegg. That about sums it up.
[143 et al] For heaven’s sake, aren’t people allowed ironical noms de blog?
148. He revealed that fact quite a while ago, in fact. Do try to keep up.
[148] Well you would have known if you’d clicked on his username.
I just posted under TTT and it got held up in moderation for some reason. Here’s what said.
146. I have no love of Labour. Didn’t like Blair, like Cameron even less, disappointed by Brown and indifferent to Clegg. That about sums it up.
Nothing Clegg does at the moment has much bearing on the LibDem vote. A LibDem leader only receives attention at election time when the media (esp the BBC) are obliged to be even-handed. I think Clegg will make a favourable impression, then. However, the LibDems will still lose a great number of seats. The best precedent is the 1970 election. Thorpe became leader in 1967 and although he was quite charismatic, at least compared to Heath, a good communicator and good on TV his party lost half their seats in 1970 and held on by the skin of their teeth in most of the others. They were washed away by the Tory tide in that election. The same is likely to happen in 2010.
152 - Maybe Mike has comment moderation on for ‘new’ users.
142, Would agree with that my father is a Conservative member.
However I put the concern regarding DC down to their preference for David Davis or Hague, who seem to resonate better in a northern constituency.
Any comments from Labour supporters on the allegations in the Telegraph, especially the claims about push polling?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/06/nboris106.xml
155. Well on the day that Brown became PM i succesfully recruited people to the tories and resigned my membership. I think this is a manufactured debate by non tories - nice try!
I would be more worried about Labour party membership going through the floor and Lib Dem membership following suit! Political participation has changed dramatically in this country over the years. People do not see it as importnat to be members of political parties- why would they?
sorry to go off topic but I’ve been busy and am catching up. Someone mentioned a spread betting firm the other day with an SNP level of 6ish. With the latest polls this seems like a very interesting bet as not much downside, but plenty of potential. Does anyone have the details?
157.
Well on the day that Brown became PM i succesfully recruited people to the tories and re-applied for my membership. I think this is a manufactured debate by non tories - nice try!
149. No.
According to chapter 2, ppgh 3 of Mrs. Test’s ‘Rules and Regulations for PB.com’ no poster must use alternate, ironic or frivolous usernames. Any username changes must be announced in writing 28 days in advance and approved by the Committee Chairperson (Mrs. Test). Users who breach these rules will receive a severe admonishment from the Committee and may have their concessional library cards withdrawn.
Footnote: The Committee itself is of course exempt from these regulations.
156. Heavy brass neck briefing to the Telegraph. Push polling is something that Lynton Crosby is well known for. The tactic is to accuse your opposition of what you are doing yourself. All parties do it. At the recent hustings where Boris pulled out, Crosby sent down people in Back Boris tshirts to hand out leaflets to people walking in which said: ken hasn’t appeared at…. now Londoners are starting to ask “Where’s Ken”.
As to whether Labour are actually doing push polling I don’t know. But Crosby has been caught out on it before.
re 12 not at all, why should it? You have a deadline for voting and it’s up to you to stick to it. Would you be expected to be let in to vote if you hammered on the polling station door at 2201?
118. I can’t believe that Nick means never averaging polls (taken from the same population at the same time using the same sampling technique.) That would be a negation of the central limit theorem.
The problem is, of course, polling isn’t so straightforward. There are different polls taken at different times using different techniques. Also opinion does change, and all polls are subject to sampling error.
Assuuming there was only one polling house:
If opinion never changed we would just average all the polls to come up with the best estimate of opinion. If opinion did change but there was no sampling error, we would just take the most recent poll. In the real world we have to strike a balance between the two.
But it gets more complicated. There are many pollsters, and as Mike and others rightly point out, different questions get different answers. This is a potential source of bias. Problem is, no-one knows for certain which pollsters are biased or by how much. So Gwynfa’s hypothetical question is not of much use. If we knew who was biased we could ignore or down weight them, and the pollster themselves would in any case alter their methodology if they were certain they were producing duff polls.
So far so good. But looking from the other end of the spectrum, it is sheer madness to latch onto any one particular poll, since it can be shown that there is about a 75% chance of it being WRONG, in the sense it won’t report a party’s true voting share to the nearest integer. The ONLY thing we can say with reasonable certainty (95%) is that an individual poll will be within +/-3 of the true value in the population. So one poll result may be 6 points away from the next purely by reasonable chance. And that is before considering the possibility of bias. So it is perfectly rational to say that any individual poll taken in isolation is, for practical purposes, ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. And that is before we try to use it as an input to a highly sensitive system like an FPTP modeller. Garbage in, Garbage out.
So we can see, we MUST find a way of extracting more information from the polls collectively, else we may as well ignore them all. There are various techniques for doing this, but ALL involve some kind of “averaging.”
WRT bias, it would seem sensible to average more polls, not fewer, since that should increase the chances of biases cancelling out, while simultaneously reducing the proportionate effect of any remaining net bias.
The only real debate is what type of averaging to use. To that extent I believe Mike and Nick are fundamentally wrong, if I understand their positions correctly.
I use a simple moving average, which for practical purposes I think is fine. After all, there isn’t going to be an election tomorrow, and we know that opinion next month will be different to opinion last month. So getting hung up over it is a bit silly. Nearer the election, it will be worth the (considerable) effort required to produce more accurate estimates.
Some academic papers on the benefits and various methods of “averaging” can be found here…
http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~clemen/bio/Published%20Papers/13.CombiningReview-Clemen-IJOF-89.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/4y2b3b
http://tinyurl.com/3nxzmu
157, Very true Martin, have you re-joined now your parties in the ascendancy?
I dont think its important as you say.
Especially in Rydale it a one horse seat
However I am now changing into York outer,on boundary changes where they say the Lib Dems have a chance.
I think the tories will walk it in 2010.
Quite frankly you can all f*** off, seeing as you are all too pathetic and girly to use your real names - UKpaul, Test, Tory Troll, Coldstone, Jack W, Innocent, Icarus, Tyson, Roger, antifrank - on and on and on and on, the Great Pb.com Rollcall of Cowardice.
Only those brave noble souls, who are prepared to come on here and say who they are, should be allowed to post: the rest of you should just lurk in the shadows like the sewer rats you are.
I admit this would be a somewhat less interesting site, with just me, NickP, Stonch, Sean Fear and Mike Smithson.
But it would be a site of integrity! We’d probably win an award or something. Hooray!
160 Sensible policies for a happier Britain, Scally/YP/Commentatore/Chevalier!
I knew we could find some common ground.
165. Shall we include our postcodes?
165 - (T) is a rather odd surname, are you Chinese?
165 - The only reason I don’t use my real name is so that parents/students can’t google me, anyone is free to email me if they really want to know!
On poll averaging:
My preference to attempt to reduce systematic errors is to compare each poll to that companies eve-of-election poll from last time (with the proviso that a major methodology shift, such as those of CommRes and YouGov won’t work - so it’s MORI (taking out their “newspaper filter”), ICM and Populus with this method.
That gives you the various swings. If this has reduced the systematic errors sufficiently and the polls are reasonably close in time, averaging should then help.
Actually, it’s all a lie.
“SeanT” is a made up persona, a wild, libertarian, vitriolic, ragingly eurosceptic Thatcherite, with a bizarre past of heroin abuse and rape trials, a man prone to rhapsodies of highflown abuse at all lefties and Europhiles - when he isn’t living it up in Bangkok hotels with dozens of Cambodian hookers, and getting moody about his famous novelist father.
Who’d ever have believed all that? Cuh! Come on, guys. Of course it’s a fiction.
I devised “SeanT” with some friends simply to entertain myself, and challenge my own impeccably leftwing views. In reality I am, of course, TOM KNOX, an international thriller writer based in Los Angeles, where I give a tithe of my enormous earnings to the Democrat party.
164. I just thought it was a two finger salute at Brown. Interestingly i tried joining the tories centrally but lets say “I am under a cloud with them!” - so have never got my membership card from them. The other people who signed up by me got there’s!.
The tories look well positioned for winning a GE - should Labour change the system it may change a defeat into a rout! Why? Labour folk are so out of touch they still think it is the Tories are the problem. Labour don’t seem to relise that they are now viewed as the problem - particularly by the special group of voters that determine elections.
165. I don’t use my real name as i don’t want any potential employer seeing my contributions on this site and giving them a reason not to give a job - now or in the future. British organisations operate a unique system in the world of not using talent and over - promoting useless people: The PM Gordon Brown is a prime example and John Major before that! The human waste of graduates up and down the country in sh*t jobs or out of work is testimate to this. Instead we have bird brains like Brown who thinks we should fill skilled jobs with Immigrants and leave the indigenous potential to it.
165 I’m not really interested in the name discussion.
I thought old Bill got it right:
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
However, how can tell what a name represents? Mine is actually both part of my name and part of my address. And I always sign my posts as my father advised.
Malcolm
173 not 165
Huge apologies.
Malcolm
179. Tom Knox sounds like a bien pensant poseur.
180 There is a Martin Day alive and kicking working in Public Affairs, but he tells me that he is not you !
179. Indeed. I think Mrs. Test’s rules should be amended to distinguish between several different degrees of offence -
1) Failing to post under one’s own name. Reduced jam tart allowance at the annual fete (Committee members excluded)
2) Posting under a frivolous name. Written warning followed by exclusion from the vegetable growing competition.
3) Posting under multiple names. Ten shilling fine and withdrawal of library card for a week.
4) Inventing not only a false name but a whole raft of false biographical details intended to elicit sympathy from other posters or lead them on wild goose chases about the ‘true’ identity of the poster concerned. The offence is compounded if the result of collusion between several individuals. Punishment - being forced to spend a day canvassing with Mrs. Test.
185 Probably the longest post you have ever contributed to this site under any of your names but still makes you look nothing more than a prat .
180 How long is it you have been looking for a job now , Martin , perhaps the nature of many of your posts on here give some clue as to why this is .
127 - I think Mark Warner is great but the idea of the Dems having two very strong VA Senators and a highly competant VA Governor in Tim Kaine is very attractive, given that they’ve struggled to get a hold of the State in recent Presidentials or House races. I think it could be the case that Obama wins VA on their coattails, whereas usually it is the other way around (winning President boosts good Congressional candidates).
Great on the economy, and I think a Southern Governor of his talents would be a welcome addition even without FP experience, but I suspect the chance of a fillibuster-proof Senate is not something the DCCC would be happy to see disrupted. Kaine is a decent second-string bet, but I doubt Warner this time. He’ll run for President in 8 years I reckon.
161 - It took me a minute to realise you meant Lynton, not Rod!!
184. Yes i took the name from a university peer of mine. I was a bit annoyed as this bloke slept in my lounge and p1ssed the living room funiture in my first rented flat. I even had to lend him a spare pair of trousers as he had p1ssed himself with them on watching the telly!!!
180 - Now that is confusing, Martin Day sounds like it *is* a real name.
186. Calm down, Mark Senior - ! - post 185 was quite droll.
186. Mark Senior - I was in employment until recently - victim of the credit crunch and a wiered management system. If you choose to gloat in someone elses problems, thats fair enough. As long as you feel better about - good for you. I see you show your compasionate Labour leaning side again.
There is another reaon i use an alias - unlike you nobody knows what i look like. You have had a picture on here previously - I would not go round baiting people too much as less tolerant people could well have ago. There have been stories in the press no less.
thank you Mark Senior. And I was just going to offer Scally a job as my PA.
And so you felt this behaviour deserved him being immortalised in the annals of the British Library Martin?
193. Yep! It caused a lot of aggro getting the furniture cleaned as it was white with what did not look disimilar to the map from bonanaza on it!
Plus the real good thing is Marin Day was a Labour supporter! 
Clegg boasting about being the most fanciable MP?
Better deal with that double chin then.
SARACENS!
Watford rule again!
Con gain everything!!
This was John Hutton quoted about Brown’s robbing of the poor today “We are talking in the worst case scenario about half a per cent of net income being the scale of the maximum loss that someone might have.”
Talk about ivory towers. What sort of life does Hutton lead? it’s OK if you can get the taxpayer to pay your grocery bills or pay for your TV licence, and at £60k per year you can afford to lose 0.5% of your income.
When you’re on £12k or less every penny counts and when Gordon takes £200 more from you that’s real things in your life that you have to do without.
195. Calamity Clegg really is living upto his name though: First it was the self-inflictered wound of the european abstention splits, now it is the admission that he has had a “sex life” with a multitude of partners plus the gaffe about having an affair in the future - that was funniest of all: A sort of “leaving” the door open like leadership speculation. I thought Calimity Clegg was media savvy so the Lib Dems always claim? Calimighty Clegg has been nothing short of Frank Spencer in his demeaner. The only thing that changes Clegg from his predecesor is a different kind of bone!
What a shower of a party! No wonder their colour is yellow!!! 
Martin - from your post above, I take it you’ve been successful in getting a new job over the past few days - congratulations.
198 LOL: LDs = League 2.
186 Mark Senior how is your ‘career’ going? Are you selling the coins still? Made enough to start buying rather than renting?? LOL
These dull boring party leaders - Brown, Cameron and Clegg remind me of another rather grey man - no, not John Major, but Clem Attlee.
But Attlee was different; he was dull but exceptionally capable, surrounded himself with bright men and achieved hugely for our nation.
Attlee’s cabinet 1945-1950
Clement Attlee: Prime Minister and Minister of Defence
Lord Jowitt: Lord Chancellor
Herbert Morrison: Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
Arthur Greenwood: Lord Privy Seal
Hugh Dalton: Chancellor of the Exchequer
Ernest Bevin: Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
James Chuter Ede: Secretary of State for the Home Department
George Henry Hall: Secretary of State for the Colonies
Lord Addison: Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and Leader of the House of Lords
Lord Pethick-Lawrence: Secretary of State for India and Burma
A. V. Alexander: First Lord of the Admiralty
Jack Lawson: Secretary of State for War
William Wedgwood Benn, Lord Stansgate: Secretary of State for Air
Ellen Wilkinson: Minister of Education
Joseph Westwood: Secretary of State for Scotland
Tom Williams: Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries
George Isaacs: Minister of Labour and National Service
Aneurin Bevan: Minister of Health
Sir Stafford Cripps: President of the Board of Trade
Emanuel Shinwell: Minister of Fuel and Power
Brown does not have a single person in his Cabinet who would have made chauffeur for any member of the 1945 Cabinet.
My God, how awful our politics have become. A bunch of dwarves who wouldn’t make it in a Disney movie. And Cameron and Clegg have the same peewees surrounding them.
Malcolm
196. Best of all - the Lib Dems will get a real nailing (Not in the Clegg sense of course). The Lib Dems will be pounded into the ground and ripped asunder. I will relish CLegg and Huhne losing their seats more than all the Labour folk. The Lib Dems really are the nasty party and it is time they were dealt a hammer blow from a massive sledge hammer!
199. Afraid not! One step closer though from being back into work. I had a job until recently but as i mentioned previously it ended under a bizzaire set of circumstances. Still i can always take legal action! :Smile:
I’m delighted we are back in a position where a drop of 3% still leaves us with 18%!
New Rasmussen Presidential Polls for Tennessee and Iowa :
Tennessee -
McCain 52% .. Clinton 38%
McCain 58% .. Obama 31%
Iowa -
McCain 51% .. Clinton 36%
McCain 42% .. Obama 46%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/tennessee/election_2008_tennessee_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election
Talk about setting yourselves low standards and failing to achieve them !
203 - Is that Brown in 22010?
2010 of course!
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/07/16/congratulations-to-mark-senior/
207/208 - And that was meant to refer to what’s now post 204 “I’m delighted we are back in a position where a drop of 3% still leaves us with 18%!” I’m guessing my attempted pithy response doesn’t look so pithy any more.
71 - alex April 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
As someone with a doctorate in Mathematical Statistics, I have to agree with Dr. Palmer.
Aggregating data from polls with different methodologies is misleading and pointless. The results of any opinion poll are the “average” answers to a given question. If two polls have different questions, how can there be an “average” answer to them?
Back on topic. Yes, it may have damaged.
The theory that all publicity is good for Cameron or the Lib Dems depends on your average Jo giving the benefit of the doubt.
Conway didn’t play into preconceived ideas about DC so the public gave him the benefit [that nice Mr Cameron sacked the bad man].
Similarly, Brown could have caught alot of flack over foot and mouth, but didn’t. People were not tuned in to him in that way, then. That story would run differently now.
The danger lies in stories that either suddenly or slowly change preceptions.
Don’t soften the public up to the idea you are a wally as they might start to think you are. Clegg is in that territory now.
As for the leadership contest, didn’t Clegg push for a shorter contest and Hulne for a longer one? Speaks volumns. Speaks now.
205 Wow, I know it’s only a v small State but that Iowa result is the starkest I’ve seen yet in terms of the effect BO might have vs HC set against McCain.
Increasingly looks like the Democrats have found a way to f**k up an unloseable election and allow the Reps back in against all odds.
Surely they won’t draw it out until August, quite bizarre.
(I write that with no axe to grind either way, despite the fact I dispise HC with every sinew of my being)
209 Took a bit of a bashing with the ugly stick there !
212. I think worst of all for Clegg is the four words “I certainly hope not.” - in relation to him having an affair in the future. It shows he does not have his own mind and their is a possibility of subconcious thought at work here - Maybe the idea has crossed his mind? A bit of fraud at work perhaps?
214
As Obama will be the candidate he will win Iowa and the nation. The awful Clinton woman is a very small fly underneath the jar of ointment.
Malcolm
215. I hate it when i do that: bit of fraud at work perhaps? I meant Fraudian slip!!!
MATHS TEST
Rearrange these elements to state an equation:
‘LOL’ ‘Mark’ ‘=’ ‘Senior’
209. Thank you for once again posting that wonderful picture of the winner of ‘Village Idiot of the Year’
218.
He certainly is Senior, i wonder whether those are false teeth he has in his mouth? No wonder he got so upset about Ming being called Skeleton…………………………………
It must be hard been a coin merchant - probably where he gets such good practice at been the best “t0sser” on this site.
211. As someone with a maths O level I’d have to agree.
Is that really Mark? He’s abit more ’senior’ than I’d expected.
He claimed he’d slept with more women than Cleggy. But then he’s had more time.
I think three or four pb.c regulars might have a vague recollection of me posting something this site. If I posted under my real name nobody would know who I was.
221. That pictures a few years old as well - he probably has a zimmer frame by now.
222. He was probably extrapolating from the results of one isolated liason in an obscure part of the country long ago…
211: If two polls have different questions, how can there an “average” answer to them?
“How would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?”, “If there were a general election tomorrow, would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or some other party?” and
“If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?” are all different questions, and it’s good to be aware of who is asking which to help you interpret the data better.
But these questions are very similar. It’s not like you’re aggregating the answers to “Do you prefer tea or coffee?” with the results of asking “What is love?”. Surely this is close enough to give you a certain amount of useful information with some degree of predictive power? (I’m taking the fact that you call doing this “misleading and pointless” to mean that it gives you absolutely no useful information and is absolutely no help in predicting anything.)
I believe we should get a look at the Populus April poll tonight?
ok no more being nasty to mr senior
where’s STONCH?
225 Mean - but funny, [which was I'm sure what you were aiming for].
226. You would have to hope you did not encounter Nick Clegg on whether he intended to vote Labour, Tory or LD at the next election: “I certainly hope not.”
Re. 227. Populus have never had the Tories above 40% (and they have only had them at 40% twice) So it’ll be interesting to see whether the Conservatives can achieve their first +40% score with Populus this month.
213/216 Tory Boy/Malcolm. Iowa is certainly one of the states that Obama puts into play. It was of cousre the state that helped to propel his campaign and perhaps there’s a sense of pride from Iowa voters in that.
Various , true I am a few years older now reached the magic 60 , but still all my own teeth though a sherbert lemon took one some years ago .
no zimmer frame required and I still have a job and part time business unlike Mr Day who cannot manage either .
228.Fair enough. [I will refrain from asking if his historic coin collection was acquired as pocket money].
Latest Rasmussen Presidential and Primary Poll Trackers :
McCain 48% .. Clinton 44%
McCain 48% .. Obama 43%
Clinton 42% .. Obama 50%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
234 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Last Populus 3/3/08. Con 37/Lab 34/LD 19.
225 Mark Senior is one of the more respected posters here, care to post a picture of yourself (multiple personalities excluded) so we can compare?
234 My personal coin collection was sold in 1969 and was bought via pocket money and a part time job , it is not a good policy to mix dealing with collecting so coins now in my possession are simply in temporary ownership .
233. I still have a job and part time business unlike Mr Day who cannot manage either .
237. Thanks Sally. My guess is Populus will have Cons on 40% and Labour on something like 32%. Populus are the most stable of all the pollsters, IMO, and large and wile swings are never noticed. For that reason they are my top two favourites (with ICM) If Populus have the Conservatives above 40% you know Labour really are in trouble.
211, 226. I understand the evidence, such as it is, that question-wording make a difference, is negative…
The citation I have is
“Lau, R. R. (1994). An analysis of the accuracy of “Trial Heat” polls during the 1992 Presidential Election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 2-20″
but can’t find an online version.
Two in-depth attempts to measure polling bias….
http://sram.unl.edu/research/WPS/SRAM_17_2006_WPS.pdf
http://forecasters.org/submissions/ISF2007PickupMark.pdf
205: Yeah, the Iowa head-to-heads are pretty consistent, they just don’t fancy Clinton at all. It’s the same in Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, NH and others, where Obama can challenge McCain for the indies. On the other side of the coin, RCP averages have Obama doing 5% worse than Clinton in Penn/Florida H2Hs, and crucially 7.5% in Ohio.
Normally you’d expect that sort of performance in the traditional three biggies would kill a candidate’s chances, but Obama looks to be breaking the mould in yet another way. Just to show how strange the potential results could be, look at Mass polls: Clinton wins by double digits, but Obama is only a sliver ahead.
I have just been following the pictures of the Olympic torch relay
What an utter shambles.And all because GB wanted to make the event political by recieving the flame in Downing Street.
Another example of anything that GB gets involved in turning into disaster.
The pictures that will be shown round the world will make us look a laughing stock.
Brown…go now.
Well, well, well.
All those people who thought I was a strange, old fashioned prude on here the other day for saying that Clegg had damaged himself, might need to change their minds.
I’ve said for a while that Clegg’ds problem is that he just isn’t interesting and that’s what a LD leader needs to be to get media attention. Maybe that’s why he decided to do the GQ interview?
As for this business about names, i don’t post under my own one, for similar reasons to Martin. I just want anonymity and no-one would know who I am, anyway.
241 Gin, I don’t think we need towait for Populus to know that. Labour are in such trouble even Peter Riddell has written about it.
245. That’s right about names & pictures - very silly to put a face and true identy to web postings unless you are a “public person”. For instance Mark has just advertised that he has a coin collection at home that is ripe for being pinched- when he is at his full time job! Whilst it is debatible whether a theif would read this information on a political site you never know. Clegg has done himself a great injustice i think. No pun intended but he has made a real “cock-up” of his leadership.
245. I’m not sure it’s people’s prudishness as such which might have damaged Clegg. Rather that this boasting makes him look unserious and desperate for publicity at any cost.
245. I’m not sure it’s people’s prudishness as such which might have damaged Clegg…rather that this boasting makes him look unserious and desperate for publicity at any cost.
243 Andrew. Obama also puts into play some of the south west states such as Colarado, New Mexico and Nevada. Virginia also comes to mind. Arkansas for Hillary is also a player.
An outside tip might be for Texas. I’ll be interested in the betting on the village idiot’s state when it starts.
245. I think a lot of woem will have been out off by Nick Cleggs boasting about his sexual prowess. This kind of politics seriously turns off women voters, I think.
Ken Livingstones ratings may also have taken a dip with women voters after the revelations of his private life - We’ll have to wait for the next Mayoral poll to see that.
247. Mark - don’t compound your mistake by telling us it is in a safe etc……….
245. I think a lot of women will have been put off by Nick Cleggs boasting about his sexual prowess. This kind of politics seriously turns off women voters, I think.
Ken Livingstones ratings may also have taken a dip with women voters after the revelations of his private life - We’ll have to wait for the next Mayoral poll to see that.
248. & 250 - It is certainly a huge mistake he has made - just in his patch alone. He has a small majority, which female voters could easily chop off at the next election.
246. Yeah, but there are degrees of trouble. If the Tories start getting leads above 40% with the most stable pollster of all, then we’ll know the sky if falling in on Gordon Brown.
244.What happened, and why on earth did it have to go to Downing Street and will we see it turn up a Wee Alex Salmond’s hoose as well? I am being made to watch some Manchester footie team.
He has a small majority, which female voters could easily chop off at the next election.
Ouch!!!!!!! Sounds painful
250. Maybe, but I also think it puts off male voters. Most guys haven’t had the number of conquests Clegg has ‘allegedly’ managed (remember, he didn’t actually state how many) and might think he’s arrogant.
Again, that isn’t really how it was if you read the interview, but it’s how it will be interpreted.
244 This picture already makes us or rather Brown a laughing stock
http://tinyurl.com/6oub7z
Though I see the taxpayer will be funding a special advisor to make sure Gordon doesn’t tuck his trousers into his socks, address fellow leaders with a blob of makeup on his forehead, lose his way into functions etc. Will we pay for another to stop him throwing phones against the walls, upsetting secretaries and swearing ?
260. It’s bad, but let’s not overstate it. What I find most odd is that many people on here the other day thought Clegg would benefit from it.
258. Yep, it’s a self respect - self control thing as well. It makes me feel he is untrustworthy - that is my reaction. I don’t like the words “I certainly hope not” - That to me undermines his image.
Clegg really is a calamity and is turning into a political Frank Spencer. Huhne was a stronger candidate by far - the problem for the Lib Dems is Huhne has been runner up twice already and Clegg is Second rate! Bring back Skeleton - At least he did not mention his boning averaging etc.
244.Benedict Brogan Olympic Chinese comedy.
Coffee House Blog has this picture of the Protests in the snow.
259. Maybe the tories should do one of those internet videos where they super-imopose brown’s head onto Mr Blobby and play the Blobby song? It must be a decade old but it would surely make even Brown laugh if he saw his head on Mr Blobby!
260. The thing about these “personal” issues, is as long as they aren’t too bad, they soon blow over. Martins comment was funny, but I doubt Clegg will suffer any fall out from this in 2010.
However, we do have local elections coming and it may be enough to stop some voters turning out for the Lib-Dem’s on May 1st. Who knows?
ConHom has this article on the New APPG set up to defend First Past The Post.
“Interestingly the greatest support from Labour MPs to my group (full list of members to be announced at our first meeting) is from our colleagues North of the Border where they have experienced the confusion and frustration from this new type of voting to Holyrood Elections.”
261 Frank. My comment was a tad ironic old bean.
The fact is that for all Clegg detractors, he’s placed the yellow peril back in the high teens in the polls with the prospect of further improvement. It’s seems a long time back when the Lib Dems were nudging toward single figures under Ming.
211 - First of all, as pointed out above, the questions are not so different in formulation as to be ridiculous. Secondly as i keep saying if you are using the polls to identify TRENDS (which is all Mike thinks they’re useful for - see post above somewhere), then it is perfectly reasonable to aggregate if you have good reason to think the trend answers to the questions will be similar.
If the aggregate of polls shows that the Conservatives have risen from 33% to 40% then it is reasonable to conclude that overall they have risen 7% in support, regardless of what their TRUE level of support is.
If one poll shows that they have risen from 33% to 40% then we can’t really conclude anything. As i said above, all “taking a aggregate” is doing in this case is formalising the statement:
“Good poll for the Tories, let’s wait to see if other pollsters show the same shift to remove the possibility of a rogue”
264 I thought it already was/…
261.I honestly think this is a non story that is causing a lot of fun in the Westminster bubble, but not in the real world.
I don’t think Clegg was the right leader at this time for the Libdems, I said all along that they needed a real media savvy street fighter like Huhne. The Libdems have got problems, but Clegg’s sexual prowess prior to settling down is not even on the radar.
248 - Bit like Tony Blair and “five times a night”?
Jack - old bean? Well not exactly old.
I admit with hindsight that Ming was terrible. But the Party would be doing better under Huhne. Clegg was on tv this morning and he’s so dull. That’s not too much of a problem if you have interesting policies, but he doesn’t.
He’s needs to look like a radical. At the moment he’s seems like the ultimate establishment politician.
266. ConHom has this article on the “New APPG set up to defend First Past The Post.”
And a more self-serving, sanctimonious, ill-informed and disengenuous pile of twaddle you will not find…
271. Yes but Blair still managed to keep his hand on the tiller and stir his party from danger.
To be fair the LD’s would have been better staying with CK as his personal problems were less poisonious for the LD’s. Whether Kennedy showed up for PMQ’s etc or not was as irrelevant as the LD’s contributions anyway. CK had great potential due to his personality and media persona - A likeable person. Boris has this strength too - Maybe this Clegg-over will help Boris to romp home?
263 Found myself willing on the protesters - the guy with the fire extinguisher especially as putting out the torch would have been a bit of an embarrassment for the pseudo-pagan ritualists.
273.Fair enough, but I thought it was worth posting here because of the reaction of Labour MP’s North of the Border who see the different voting systems in action. Like it or not, some of us who are having to use these systems are not impressed, and I say that as someone whose party would be considerable worse off under FPTP.
AV is a bit of a double edged sword for Brown. It might help to keep the Tories out, but if the Tories win, it could destroy the Labour party. I could then envisage the Lib Dems becoming the main left wing voice.
277. Labour and AV are all talk - it’s just a way of trying to get the LD’s to support Ken in London. Messing round with the electoral system will get them no-where - end of story.
I was condemened by Labour and Lib Dems posters about comparing Labour’s arrogant and manipulative motives towards the electoral system with that of Zimbabwe. But, when you look at the problems that Lord Malloch-Brown cites in Zimbabwe as distorting the electoral system - we have the same problems here (Many implemented by Labour). You could say at least Robert Mugabe was elected - “Blobby Brown” has not even been elected *indirectly* at a GE, when he is the Labour leader.
Off topic , I have just completed a new Yougov London Mayoral poll ( it does not seem to matter that I don’t live or vote in London ) . There is also a sort of national voting question too thogh the wording is not as it usually is framed , plus a number of questions on which professions you would/would not trust etc . Finally a series of theoretical who you would vote for from va list of various made up characters . All in all a strange poll .
What right does Brown have to lecture Mugabe, when Brown is really no better?
276. my comments were not named at you Chris, but Kawczynski.
277. I wouldn’t be surprised if Brown was desperate enough to change the voting system before 2010. But if its percieved by the public that the only reason he’s doing is to try and secure himself a majority against the mood of the public, then he would risk even more of a backlash.
I’m sure that even under AV there would be ways for the public to damage Labour and if the public feel Brown is trying to pull a con trick on them, they might just do it. The public are more saavy about voting than a lot of people realise - Just look at the tactical voting that went on in 1997 and 2001 against the Tories.
I suspect Brown will identify something like AV, but make it a manifesto commitment, rather than implementing it before 2010. That way he’ll also have a bone to throw to the Lib-Dems should he need to.
273 - You may find it incomprehensible, but some people actually disagree with you. AV is useless.
279. I bet you had Ken Livingstone as your second choice.
I don’t know how you find time to work full time, post on here, get involved in LD politics and run your own business - having to deal with all of the accounts, making sure the right amount of tax is paid on your second income etc must be a real pain!
281. “aimed”, not “named”
275. One day people will look back on the craven attitude the UK is taking toward China and the Olympics in the same way they cringe at our footballers doing the Nazi salute in 1938.
281 - it’s all very well attacking those who want to keep FPTP for (you say) “self-serving” reasons, but that will only do if you attack those in Labour who are toying with AV similarly.
The fact that you don’t believe it would help Labour/harm the Tories is irrelevant to the point about whether some of it’s advocates think it would.
280 Martin - it is insulting to the thousands who have been killed, tortured, maimed and made homeless, to the millions who have suffered starvation and early deaths through disease , the millions of children orphaned and uneducated as a result of Mugabe’s paranoid greed to make ill thought out comparisons between Gordon Brown & Robert Mugabe.
286, 1936*. Also, I think that it was Hitler who invented the torch, as a symbol of Aryan purity.
Then again, I heard that from a paper reviewer on Sky News so it might just be twaddle.
In what respects? Sporting boycotts should go hand in hand with economic boycotts, not in place of them.
284 You would lose your bet .
It is called multi tasking , there are some who can’t manage to do 1 task at a time correctly . I am also cooking my roast dinner and am off to Billingshurst later to play bar billiards .
287. Maybe the voting system should be changed; the number of MP’s slashed to 400 and the constitiencies redrawn - In a big bang approach MP’s allowances could also be removed and an increase in pay allowed.
The house of Lords should be reduced to 100 members - elected by sorts.
289.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3128202.stm
291. Is billinghurst near by?
6.
There are only three ways to compile an average; Poll of Polls, Rolling Averages or Weighted Moving Averages/Regression Analysis (like the infamous Samplemiser). Although I have found Samplemiser to be the most accurate, because it adjusts for the timeliness and sample size, I have to say that either method is better than comparing polls from the same company only other polls from the same company - especially in an enviroment where polling companies rarely publish more than two polls in a month. With the exception of ComRes, which polls less frequently than the others, all the polling companies produce results that are very close to one another, indicating that methodological differences are relatively unimportant when compared to other sources of error.
287. All change hurts “someone”. Like boundary changes “hurt” Labour, but not changing the boundaries would be inequitable. Similarly if the electoral system hurts the voters, it should be changed.
296 - That’s irrelevant to the point i was making. You attack all those who don’t agree with your viewpoint as “self serving and ill-informed”, but are conveniently silent about the motives of many who appear to want to change the system to something you like.
294 15-20 miles
Chris A @ 197 - “This was John Hutton quoted about Brown’s robbing of the poor today “We are talking in the worst case scenario about half a per cent of net income being the scale of the maximum loss that someone might have.””
Can we have a reality check here please?
Worst case scenario is an occupational pensioner, under 65, with a pension of £7,800 a year or around 150 quid a week.
The personal allowance is £5,435, leaving £2,365 taxable income. 10% on, say, the first £2,320 is £232 plus 22% on the remaining £45 - a tax total of £242 - leaving a net income of £7,558.
Under Gordon Brown’s new rules (I’ve done the Fiscal Maths!) the £2,365 taxable income is all charged at 20% - a tax total of £473, leaving a net income of £7,237.
Pardon me for being pedantic, but that is an additional burden of £231 from an original net income of £7,558 - or 3.056% - MORE THAN SIX TIMES THE AMOUNT QUOTED BY JOHN HUTTON.
With innumerate idiots like him as our Business Secretary, is anyone surprised the country is going to the dogs?
297. Rubbish. If the letter had been remotely cogent in its defence of FPTP I would have given it some respect. All it amounts to is a panicked petition saying “Oy. I’ve heard they may be changing the entrance rules for our cosy little club. We’ve got to put our differences aside and put a stop to this!”
299 - Tax credits?
196. I definatly think theres an arugement for changing the system, but I’m not sure if Brown, unelected and not having stood on a manifesto to do it, is the best person, this late in the day. Labour should have done it in their first or second terms, to do it now opens them to accusations that the only reason they are doing it is because they are behind in the polls. Whether thats true or not, it could be very, very damaging for Brown. He’s surewly got to at least stand for election on a commitment to change the system?
300 and Herr Gruppenfurher you can explain twenty Labour MPs signing up at once how?
281.Rod, I know you did. But put a passionate FPTP advocate in a room with someone who is equally passionate about PR and the debate might get heated.
296. I definatly think theres an arguement for changing the system, but I’m not sure if Brown, unelected and not having stood on a manifesto to do it, is the best person, this late in the day. Labour should have done it in their first or second terms, to do it now opens them to accusations that the only reason they are doing it is because they are behind in the polls. Whether thats true or not, it could be very, very damaging for Brown. He’s surely got to at least stand for election on a commitment to change the system?
300 - I don’t know what you took such great offence to. There was a line about “unfairness and confusion” of AV, which obviously you disagree with, but the bulk was about Labour mucking about with a well-established electoral system, with no public mandate and for political gain. Which has strong circumstantial justification if nothing else.
171 “WRT bias, it would seem sensible to average more polls, not fewer, since that should increase the chances of biases cancelling out, while simultaneously reducing the proportionate effect of any remaining net bias.”
Rod, I found your post 171 interesting, but I think this statement is wrong. There is no guarantee that averaging will increase the chances of the biases cancelling. It may, but it also may not.
293, I stand corrected. Damnit, I had 1936 burnt into my brain for some reason. It wasn’t when Hitler became Chancellor, because that was ‘33, and obviously the war started a year later….what happened in 1936?
288.Agree with you on this Ted, which is why I am turned off by the comments of a few on ConHom who are up in arms about the MEP ballot.
303. Isn’t it appalling, people coming on here under assumed names to hurl personal abuse?
308. Berlin Olympics. Also shameful - easy to confuse the two.
Benedict Brogan on Boris complains of “dirty tricks”.
All part and parcel of the rough and tumble of a campaign, or is allegedly hacking into Boris’s website and email service by persons unknown a step too far?
I thought that what happened to Iain Dale’s diary during the 2005 campaign was a step too far in dirty tricks department.
280 Martin you do yourself no credit in such risible comparisions.
I remember a Conservative commentator in 97, saying he was proud to be British and see the transfer of power in this country, achieved in such a proficient manner.
I expect the same occurence in 2010 if Cameron wins the election.
I have tried to make a post several times about the Chinese security around the flame but I can find nothing in the banned list which might cause it.
298
you, I and Benedict dont live too far away from each other. Benedict is about 13 miles east of me, Billingshurst about 6 to the West
277
“…destroy the Labour Party…”
Weren’t we talking about the destruction of the Tory Party a few years ago. You know, the party with less than a couple of hundred seats in Parliament. Everyone continually has talked about the end of the Liberals throughout my lifetime.
As we now have three Tory Parties it hardly seems to matter whether they are destroyed or not. They could all join together and the only thing that would be argued about is who would lead them. They could become a British Zanu PF [kick out all the black farmers - that should be popular.] Frank I enjoy your posts but surely this one is just a taddles bizarre.
[BNP,] UKIP, SNP, Relate, Greens, Plaid - parties that at least suggest something other than the three mildly Tory groupings. Nobody votes for them because the leaders are beauty pageant contestants. Other than Salmond no-one knows who they are.
Malcolm
315 White. not Brogan… !!
299 he is a liar just like every other govt minister. a tawdry, low-life liar. and thats why they will be destroyed at the next election.
316. Not the complete destruction of Labour, but I can see them having less than 100 MPs within a decade or so.
319. That would be great but I can’t see it myself unless some kind of rootsy, socialist alternative develops. Too many seats simply have rock solid Labour traditions.
320. Many of those seats should be culled if the boundary commision kept up with changes in population. Certainly the case in my region - South Wales.
But anyway, if the Lib Dems become the true voice of the left, voting for them may be the ebst way for Labour traditionalists to stop the Tories. Far too much of Labour’s funding is from the trade unions. That is unsustainable.
New thread - Is Berlusconi set for a third term in Italy?
Thanks
Double Carpet
320
The only reason people could possibly vote for one of our three Tory parties has something to do with tradition and party name recognition.
None of them are actually offering any solutions to the world’s major problems; they have never really discussed them since Benn left International Development. He and that Tory John Bercow somewhat raised the quality of discussion in the Commons; all gone now. They just shout at each other and laugh a lot. Spitting Image brought more thoughtful political discourse.
Malcolm
if the Lib Dems become the true voice of the left…
…a big ask. They are a middle class party led by middle class public schoolboys. For them to take over in South Wales or South Yorkshire you are talking about a complete cultural change, and them being perceived in a totally different way by the voters. I can’t see it.
So you’re in Southwater then MTF?
Wanted to find that nice Mr Bercow’s name and so for the first time ever I went on to a Tory party site. Who could possibly vote for a party that gave a kid a couple of crayons to draw a tree for them?
Can’t see Winston Churchill getting up to that sort of nonsense.
Malcolm
319 no chance of Labour getting less than 200 in the next generation. Even if they got 25% they would get more than 200…….
326 Better than paying adults to draw swastikas. I suspect Winston might have spotted that one.
Labour could collapse if 3 things happened.
1: Funding reform that blocked Union donations to Labour.
2: Scottish independence.
3: Another 80s SDP-style internal split following their next election defeat.
I wouldn’t bet on it though.
re 266 I still am amazed - given the comments on this story - of the number of people who seem to think that we couldn’t change the electoral system without a referendum. When AV failed narrowly in the 1920/30s the concept of the HoC having to put the proposal to a referendum would have seemed like something straight from Nazi Germany - plebiscites being the way they ran things.
330 - But times have changed since then. The current Parliament shouldn’t be able to change its own rules, that is considered the same now across the world. I know of no major democracy that could have the government re-write the rules of the election to suit itself as easily as it can be done here.
Referenda are established now for Constitutional changes in the UK, and changing the way Parliament is elected is about as Constitutional as it gets.
Looking at these figures one of the most interesting scenarios is if the Tories become the biggest party and receive somewhere between 305 and 320 seats (which is what these polls seem to be predicting).
Below 305 Labour and the Libs should have enough to form a coalition. Above 320 and a minority Tory government would be workable (needing unionist support from time to time). Between the two and LibLab will be short of a majority and would need nationalist support (unlikely as this would mean supporting an independence referendum in Scotland).
In this scenario the Libs would have little choice but to go in with Cameron as this is the only workable option.
An interesting question is what posts could Cameron ever give to the Libs?
Foreign sec is out because of EU.
Home Office and Justice out because of sentencing.
Chancellor???
Or would Cameron offer PR?
329. An SDP type split would happen because of something like the West Lothian Question. Many English Labour MPs are getting sick of the treatment of England. I would expect Frank Field to lead a split, and hopefully the anglophobic labour scum party put out of action for good. The problem is the Tories are only slightly better. An English Grand Committee is a step towards English self government and will ultimately lead to an English Parliament and then full independence.