Deltapoll

[Tony Otim]

Would they have needed to specify what other party? Is it not more likely just an I'm voting for someone other than this lot option rather than having a specific party in mind. In practice that will probably either be a non-vote or a vote for one of the above...

[Pete Whitehead]

May 26, 2024 9:18:34 GMT batman said:

yes that would be my guess. Totally agree with your comment Pete apart from your incorrect use of the word ilk (although you are far from alone in that - even the odd Scottish contributor here does that sometimes).

As others frequently point out on here, words change their meaning. I understand the 'correct' meaning of the word, but accept it is also commonly understood to mean what I meant in my use of it.

[carlton43]

May 26, 2024 9:57:32 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

May 26, 2024 9:18:34 GMT batman said:

yes that would be my guess. Totally agree with your comment Pete apart from your incorrect use of the word ilk (although you are far from alone in that - even the odd Scottish contributor here does that sometimes).

As others frequently point out on here, words change their meaning. I understand the 'correct' meaning of the word, but accept it is also commonly understood to mean what I meant in my use of it.

As a general point on precision in the use of words.   If we lose the centrality and origins in meanings we lose complexity, diversity, precision and much of the wealth of the language.

It is the poorly educated, the slovenly, the careless and the chavs that degrade and misuse language.  They know little about formal structure, are unconcerned about spelling or pronunciation, parsing or anything at all.  They tend to demean and to diminish all that they touch and use.

This inevitably results in a debauched language where the average vocabulary diminishes and contracts year-on-year.  Precision and conciseness are lost and the richness of seeking the appropriate word is discarded as unnecessary.  It results in tedious jargon, NadSat and Nuspeak.  It is the dull conformity of levelling down and down and down again.  It leads to many members here using 'Your' instead of 'You Are'.

With such words as 'Ilk', why use them at all if not used correctly?  Use type, faction, group or whatever is suitable.  Ilk is a precise Scottish word for membership of a sept of a clan, or the household of an extended contiguous family, or those living near to and within the thrall of an important man.  It implies family connection, blood connection, connection of service and duty.

All of this matters to some of us and should matter more to the rest of you.

[finsobruce]

May 26, 2024 10:29:21 GMT carlton43 said:

May 26, 2024 9:57:32 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

As others frequently point out on here, words change their meaning. I understand the 'correct' meaning of the word, but accept it is also commonly understood to mean what I meant in my use of it.

As a general point on precision in the use of words.   If we lose the centrality and origins in meanings we lose complexity, diversity, precision and much of the wealth of the language.

It is the poorly educated, the slovenly, the careless and the chavs that degrade and misuse language.  They know little about formal structure, are unconcerned about spelling or pronunciation, parsing or anything at all.  They tend to demean and to diminish all that they touch and use.

This inevitably results in a debauched language where the average vocabulary diminishes and contracts year-on-year.  Precision and conciseness are lost and the richness of seeking the appropriate word is discarded as unnecessary.  It results in tedious jargon, NadSat and Nuspeak.  It is the dull conformity of levelling down and down and down again.  It leads to many members here using 'Your' instead of 'You Are'.

With such words as 'Ilk', why use them at all if not used correctly?  Use type, faction, group or whatever is suitable.  Ilk is a precise Scottish word for membership of a sept of a clan, or the household of an extended contiguous family, or those living near to and within the thrall of an important man.  It implies family connection, blood connection, connection of service and duty.

All of this matters to some of us and should matter more to the rest of you.

This from the Caledonian Mercury of Saturday the 17th of March 1722:

"That the voluntar Roup and Sale of the Estate of Airton in Fife being formerly advertised to be on the 14th of June; but it then appearing that several people who intended to purchase , had not fully satisfied themselves as to the rental of the Estate and some other particulars, and desired that the roup  might be delayed for some time. It was therefore agreed  that the roup and the sale be put off until Friday the 28th of June instant , at which time the said lands and Barony of Airton, and others, which did belong to the deceased Sir John Airton of that ilk ....."

[The Bishop]

The total number of 18-24 voters in this poll won't be that big to start with, which makes "strange" results like the above much more possible (we can probably say the same about the latest YouGov giving Reform a frankly implausible 11% amongst the youngest respondents)

[johnloony]

May 26, 2024 10:29:21 GMT carlton43 said:

With such words as 'Ilk', why use them at all if not used correctly?  Use type, faction, group or whatever is suitable.  Ilk is a precise Scottish word for membership of a sept of a clan, or the household of an extended contiguous family, or those living near to and within the thrall of an important man.  It implies family connection, blood connection, connection of service and duty.

All of this matters to some of us and should matter more to the rest of you.

I used the word "ilk" in the first letter I ever had published in the letters page of the local newspaper. I probably didn't use it with the precise meanings you meant.

[batman]

It's an excellent letter apart from the ilk. Well done even if it was a very long time ago John.

[timmullen]

May 26, 2024 18:57:16 GMT batman said:

It's an excellent letter apart from the ilk. Well done even if it was a very long time ago John.

Although pending a page refresh only Mr Walker’s letter appeared on my screen causing a moment of horror when I thought John wasn’t John at all!

[andrewp]

Con 25% (+2)
Lab 48% (+3)
Lib Dem 10% (+1)
Reform 9% (-1)
SNP 2% (-1)
Green 4% (-2)
Other 3% (-)
Fieldwork: 31st May - 3rd June 2024
Sample: 1,077 GB adults
(Changes from 23rd-25th May 2024)

[hullenedge]

[Jack]

Jun 8, 2024 21:37:32 GMT hullenedge said:

I really wish sites wouldn't put numbers into Electoral Calculus and then claim that it's in any way an accurate prediction.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2024 21:47:39 GMT Jack said:

Jun 8, 2024 21:37:32 GMT hullenedge said:

I really wish sites wouldn't put numbers into Electoral Calculus and then claim that it's in any way an accurate prediction.

The article taks about handling the UNS with "caution". Of course, I'm not sure this poll accounts for tactical voting either. 

[woollyliberal]

We've pretty much had a full set of polls from regular pollsters since Farage's return. Reform are 3.2% ahead of where they were before, with the Tories down 2.0% and Labour down 1.1%. Everyone else is within a fraction of no change.

A week or two back, a couple of the statisticians behind the polls said that a 1 point change could cost, or save the Tories about 18 seats. 2 points in either direction translates to something like 30 seats. Farage taking 2 points from the Tories has likely made a material difference to the final result.

[Deleted]

Putting this in context, the Conservative lead in 1931 was 24%.

[jamesdoyle]

Jun 9, 2024 7:17:21 GMT woollyliberal said:

We've pretty much had a full set of polls from regular pollsters since Farage's return. Reform are 3.2% ahead of where they were before, with the Tories down 2.0% and Labour down 1.1%. Everyone else is within a fraction of no change.

A week or two back, a couple of the statisticians behind the polls said that a 1 point change could cost, or save the Tories about 18 seats. 2 points in either direction translates to something like 30 seats. Farage taking 2 points from the Tories has likely made a material difference to the final result.

I'm not sure about the rationale behind that - majorities are not distributed evenly, so the starting point in the poll is as important as the movement.
A week or so back, one of the pollsters doing an MRP had a chart with it showing how Con seats were distributed, in terms of majority. It was a double-ended coke bottle shape: there was a narrow 'neck' (tiny majorities currently), then a broad section (small majorities), narrowing to a 'waist' somewhat wider than the neck, the flaring out to a broad 'base' (large majorities), then narrowing to another 'neck'. At that point, the losses to Lab/LibDem were climbing into the second broad band, So gaining a point might save quite a few seats, but a second, or third point, would gain fair fewer, as they'd be reaching into the waist. Conversely, losing a point might lose a fair few seats, but the second or possibly third point would see the COns totally collapse in numbers to a mere handful.

[woollyliberal]

Jun 9, 2024 10:13:14 GMT jamesdoyle said:

Jun 9, 2024 7:17:21 GMT woollyliberal said:

We've pretty much had a full set of polls from regular pollsters since Farage's return. Reform are 3.2% ahead of where they were before, with the Tories down 2.0% and Labour down 1.1%. Everyone else is within a fraction of no change.

A week or two back, a couple of the statisticians behind the polls said that a 1 point change could cost, or save the Tories about 18 seats. 2 points in either direction translates to something like 30 seats. Farage taking 2 points from the Tories has likely made a material difference to the final result.

I'm not sure about the rationale behind that - majorities are not distributed evenly, so the starting point in the poll is as important as the movement.
A week or so back, one of the pollsters doing an MRP had a chart with it showing how Con seats were distributed, in terms of majority. It was a double-ended coke bottle shape: there was a narrow 'neck' (tiny majorities currently), then a broad section (small majorities), narrowing to a 'waist' somewhat wider than the neck, the flaring out to a broad 'base' (large majorities), then narrowing to another 'neck'. At that point, the losses to Lab/LibDem were climbing into the second broad band, So gaining a point might save quite a few seats, but a second, or third point, would gain fair fewer, as they'd be reaching into the waist. Conversely, losing a point might lose a fair few seats, but the second or possibly third point would see the Cons totally collapse in numbers to a mere handful.

That's kind of what I said. The pollsters said a 1 point change from where the Tories were at the time would gain or lose them about 18 seats. A further 1 point would lose or gain them a dozen more, which is less.

[jamesdoyle]

Jun 9, 2024 12:14:45 GMT woollyliberal said:

Jun 9, 2024 10:13:14 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I'm not sure about the rationale behind that - majorities are not distributed evenly, so the starting point in the poll is as important as the movement.
A week or so back, one of the pollsters doing an MRP had a chart with it showing how Con seats were distributed, in terms of majority. It was a double-ended coke bottle shape: there was a narrow 'neck' (tiny majorities currently), then a broad section (small majorities), narrowing to a 'waist' somewhat wider than the neck, the flaring out to a broad 'base' (large majorities), then narrowing to another 'neck'. At that point, the losses to Lab/LibDem were climbing into the second broad band, So gaining a point might save quite a few seats, but a second, or third point, would gain fair fewer, as they'd be reaching into the waist. Conversely, losing a point might lose a fair few seats, but the second or possibly third point would see the Cons totally collapse in numbers to a mere handful.

That's kind of what I said. The pollsters said a 1 point change from where the Tories were at the time would gain or lose them about 18 seats. A further 1 point would lose or gain them a dozen more, which is less.

I think that's still quite linear. It was more like: +1% save 18 seats, +2% save 6; -1% lose 18 seats, -2% lose 50.

[johnloony]

Jun 9, 2024 10:13:14 GMT jamesdoyle said:

Jun 9, 2024 7:17:21 GMT woollyliberal said:

We've pretty much had a full set of polls from regular pollsters since Farage's return. Reform are 3.2% ahead of where they were before, with the Tories down 2.0% and Labour down 1.1%. Everyone else is within a fraction of no change.

A week or two back, a couple of the statisticians behind the polls said that a 1 point change could cost, or save the Tories about 18 seats. 2 points in either direction translates to something like 30 seats. Farage taking 2 points from the Tories has likely made a material difference to the final result.

I'm not sure about the rationale behind that - majorities are not distributed evenly, so the starting point in the poll is as important as the movement.
A week or so back, one of the pollsters doing an MRP had a chart with it showing how Con seats were distributed, in terms of majority. It was a double-ended coke bottle shape: there was a narrow 'neck' (tiny majorities currently), then a broad section (small majorities), narrowing to a 'waist' somewhat wider than the neck, the flaring out to a broad 'base' (large majorities), then narrowing to another 'neck'. At that point, the losses to Lab/LibDem were climbing into the second broad band, So gaining a point might save quite a few seats, but a second, or third point, would gain fair fewer, as they'd be reaching into the waist. Conversely, losing a point might lose a fair few seats, but the second or possibly third point would see the COns totally collapse in numbers to a mere handful.

I’m struggling to understand the shape you’re describing - not least, which way round are the two Coke bottles?

[jamesdoyle]

Jun 9, 2024 13:13:50 GMT johnloony said:

Jun 9, 2024 10:13:14 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I'm not sure about the rationale behind that - majorities are not distributed evenly, so the starting point in the poll is as important as the movement.
A week or so back, one of the pollsters doing an MRP had a chart with it showing how Con seats were distributed, in terms of majority. It was a double-ended coke bottle shape: there was a narrow 'neck' (tiny majorities currently), then a broad section (small majorities), narrowing to a 'waist' somewhat wider than the neck, the flaring out to a broad 'base' (large majorities), then narrowing to another 'neck'. At that point, the losses to Lab/LibDem were climbing into the second broad band, So gaining a point might save quite a few seats, but a second, or third point, would gain fair fewer, as they'd be reaching into the waist. Conversely, losing a point might lose a fair few seats, but the second or possibly third point would see the COns totally collapse in numbers to a mere handful.

I’m struggling to understand the shape you’re describing - not least, which way round are the two Coke bottles?

    /    \        /    \
=            =            =
    \    /        \    /

[hullenedge]