|
|
Post by observer on Jun 20, 2024 11:38:02 GMT
I read the explanatory notes and all they show is that the voting intention question came first. It means that the subsequent questions could have had no bearing on the initial question. Are you saying that People Polling are lying in their explanatory notes? Do you have evidence? The fact that Prof Goodwin will be pleased by the results is relevant - how exactly? It was an online poll with incentives. It may not have affected the answers but who submitted them. If GBNews - where I understand Messrs Farage and Tice make the occasional appearance - and Goodwin himself would be pleased with the outcome then they should have commissioned somebody else to conduct it. If only to disavow people who might find such a hugely outlying poll as suspect. How might such incentives have influenced the voting intention question? Are you saying that people would receive a prize if they said they intended to vote Reform? I didn't see any sign of that. Did you? What evidence did you see? Are you saying that GB News were involved in the poll? |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,183
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jun 20, 2024 11:50:00 GMT
It was an online poll with incentives. It may not have affected the answers but who submitted them. If GBNews - where I understand Messrs Farage and Tice make the occasional appearance - and Goodwin himself would be pleased with the outcome then they should have commissioned somebody else to conduct it. If only to disavow people who might find such a hugely outlying poll as suspect. How might such incentives have influenced the voting intention question? Are you saying that people would receive a prize if they said they intended to vote Reform? I didn't see any sign of that. Did you? What evidence did you see? Are you saying that GB News were involved in the poll? Of course they were involved in the poll. You don't think the questions were chosen at random, do you? I specifically didn't say that the receiving of a prize would influence anyone's voting intention. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 20, 2024 11:53:35 GMT
How might such incentives have influenced the voting intention question? Are you saying that people would receive a prize if they said they intended to vote Reform? I didn't see any sign of that. Did you? What evidence did you see? Are you saying that GB News were involved in the poll? Of course they were involved in the poll. You don't think the questions were chosen at random, do you? I specifically didn't say that the receiving of a prize would influence anyone's voting intention. So why mention 'incentives'? And if GB News were involved -I see you offer no evidence - how would that affect the voting-intention question? You seem to be confusing many different cross-currents which may have the effect of muddying the waters |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 20, 2024 12:05:29 GMT
Putting those numbers into Electoral Calculus gives: Labour 443 Lib Dem 64 Reform 51 Conservative 45 SNP 21 Plaid Cymru 4 Green 2 Others 2 (Birmingham Ladywood and Islington North) So the Lib Dems would form the official opposition by coming fourth. The "Sir Ed, do you now support FPTP?" questions would be funny. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 20, 2024 12:09:53 GMT
And the answer I can guarantee you would be a firm “No”
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,183
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jun 20, 2024 12:15:02 GMT
Of course they were involved in the poll. You don't think the questions were chosen at random, do you? I specifically didn't say that the receiving of a prize would influence anyone's voting intention. So why mention 'incentives'? And if GB News were involved -I see you offer no evidence - how would that affect the voting-intention question? You seem to be confusing many different cross-currents which may have the effect of muddying the waters GBNews appears to have commissioned the poll and presumably they help set the heavily slanted questions. How is that not being involved? Maybe People Polling just drew four questions at random out of a pint pot but I doubt it. Let us all know if you have better info? The incentives were mentioned not by me but of the explanatory notes of the survey. Why would they need to do that if it wasn't relevant in some way? It's a potential factor and therefore they are obliged to reveal as as far as I read the rules. Incentives on an online poll are even more suspect. There was a poll sponsored by Unison some tome ago that somehow came to the conclusion that the public supported the programme of the Union - or at least the bits they were questioned about. I said previously that I can't think of a poll that has gone against the views of whoever is paying for it. This one has now gone a stage further with Goodwin using the 'shock' findings to monetise them on his new Youtube channel. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 20, 2024 12:26:39 GMT
They often do actually. But this one is what the spin doctor ordered.
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 20, 2024 12:27:32 GMT
So why mention 'incentives'? And if GB News were involved -I see you offer no evidence - how would that affect the voting-intention question? You seem to be confusing many different cross-currents which may have the effect of muddying the waters GBNews appears to have commissioned the poll and presumably they help set the heavily slanted questions. How is that not being involved? Maybe People Polling just drew four questions at random out of a pint pot but I doubt it. Let us all know if you have better info? The incentives were mentioned not by me but of the explanatory notes of the survey. Why would they need to do that if it wasn't relevant in some way? It's a potential factor and therefore they are obliged to reveal as as far as I read the rules. Incentives on an online poll are even more suspect. There was a poll sponsored by Unison some tome ago that somehow came to the conclusion that the public supported the programme of the Union - or at least the bits they were questioned about. I said previously that I can't think of a poll that has gone against the views of whoever is paying for it. This one has now gone a stage further with Goodwin using the 'shock' findings to monetise them on his new Youtube channel. But the voting-intention question was first...so the subsequent questions could not have affected the first question. Surely you can see this? I'll ask again: are you saying that 'incentives' were offered to only the set of respondents who said they wanted to vote Reform? |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 20, 2024 12:34:12 GMT
The " Sir Ed Rishi, do you now support FPTP PR?" questions would be funny. FTFY |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 20, 2024 12:41:37 GMT
This "poll's" subsample for Scotland has the SNP leading Labour by 37-20. I really do think that further comment is superfluous.
|
|
|
|
Post by arnieg on Jun 20, 2024 12:53:21 GMT
We did a phone poll.
Q: are people who pick up the phone to strangers representative of the population as a whole
We used a standing panel of voters who regularly answer detailed political surveys
Q: are people so politicaly engaged they are willing to do this representative
We offered an incentive
Q: are people who respond to incentives representative
Q: what was the incentive, a trip to Rwanda for the migrant of your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jun 20, 2024 13:22:36 GMT
I don't think there's any need to get into debating whether books were cooked or not - it's obviously (at this point) very much an outlier, which could just be that they got a dodgy sample. If more polls from other polling firms show a similar movement, then it will become more credible. But other polls were published yesterday which didn't show this, so it smells off.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Jun 20, 2024 13:34:11 GMT
Techne and Omnisis are due to publish today/tomorrow, plus possibly a second Yougov, an Opinium, a BMP and a Whitestone.
So there should soon be ample evidence to show if this is a valid representation of a real poll move, or an outlier/house effect/slanted (*pick description of choice...)
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,046
|
Post by nyx on Jun 20, 2024 13:48:49 GMT
This "poll's" subsample for Scotland has the SNP leading Labour by 37-20. I really do think that further comment is superfluous. Subsamples are never reliable I saw one Scottish poll a few days ago with a subsample something like Labour 50%, SNP 20% |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,183
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jun 20, 2024 14:54:35 GMT
GBNews appears to have commissioned the poll and presumably they help set the heavily slanted questions. How is that not being involved? Maybe People Polling just drew four questions at random out of a pint pot but I doubt it. Let us all know if you have better info? The incentives were mentioned not by me but of the explanatory notes of the survey. Why would they need to do that if it wasn't relevant in some way? It's a potential factor and therefore they are obliged to reveal as as far as I read the rules. Incentives on an online poll are even more suspect. There was a poll sponsored by Unison some tome ago that somehow came to the conclusion that the public supported the programme of the Union - or at least the bits they were questioned about. I said previously that I can't think of a poll that has gone against the views of whoever is paying for it. This one has now gone a stage further with Goodwin using the 'shock' findings to monetise them on his new Youtube channel. But the voting-intention question was first...so the subsequent questions could not have affected the first question. Surely you can see this? I'll ask again: are you saying that 'incentives' were offered to only the set of respondents who said they wanted to vote Reform? Not saying that, haven't said that, not going to say that. But offering incentives is a recognised potential factor in polling and why it has to be declared. Nobody is saying that it influences answers but it might influence who answers. Both the voting intent figures and those for the policy questions are at odds with all other polls I can find. They were conducted by a frequent contributor to GBNews who comments not just on data but champions Reform UK. It's all so incestuous. And it's the same with every other poll I've ever seen by an interest group that commissions it, |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 20, 2024 15:03:12 GMT
Techne and Omnisis are due to publish today/tomorrow, plus possibly a second Yougov, an Opinium, a BMP and a Whitestone. So there should soon be ample evidence to show if this is a valid representation of a real poll move, or an outlier/house effect/slanted (*pick description of choice...) the YouGov poll seems to confirm the labour figure but the Reform number is still in the teens not the twenties |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 20, 2024 15:07:58 GMT
No serious pollster other than YouGov is showing Labour anything like that low, though.
There are maybe half a dozen more polls due in the next 48 hours, let's see what that brings.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 20, 2024 15:12:56 GMT
No serious pollster other than YouGov is showing Labour anything like that low, though. There are maybe half a dozen more polls due in the next 48 hours, let's see what that brings. We have already had quite a few with dates that overlapped with this survey or stopped only shortly before in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 20, 2024 19:37:50 GMT
The " Sir Ed Rishi, do you now support FPTP PR?" questions would be funny. FTFY I dont think Rishi will be around to have that question posed to him tbf  |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jun 20, 2024 20:06:29 GMT
This "poll's" subsample for Scotland has the SNP leading Labour by 37-20. I really do think that further comment is superfluous. With that sort of lead I don't know how you get only 21 SNP seats. |
|
