Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 3:50:55 GMT
Hodges' response to Ashcroft btw was "let's see who is right in 18 months' time" - confirming again that he neither knows nor cares what polling is for and how it works. Polling isn't really predictive though - not in that sense. It can't tell us who will win the next GE. Exactly my point. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Nov 22, 2013 9:49:26 GMT
Lord Ashcroft has written about this alleged comfort poll - and has called on them to publish. He has also rubbished using the incumbants name as dodgy. lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/11/if-the-tories-are-returning-to-comfort-polling-its-a-bad-sign/As he says in that article "Those who have read Smell The Coffee, my account of the 2005 election, will recall that it was precisely this kind of nonsense that prompted me to start polling in the first place. Lord Saatchi, then the Conservatives’ co-chairman, announced in 2004 that despite Labour’s national lead the Tories private polling put them ahead in the marginals, and on course to win the election. This sounded so unlikely to me that I decided to commission my own research to find out whether it was really true. We know what the answer was." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 19:14:08 GMT
apparently some more expected tonight
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 20:18:18 GMT
/photo/1
UK - Folkestone & Hythe, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Great Yarmouth, Crewe & Nantwich polls
No real surprises, UKIP may get excited by Great Yarmouth but the Crewe one for us is very encouraging.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 16, 2013 21:14:35 GMT
/photo/1 UK - Folkestone & Hythe, Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Great Yarmouth, Crewe & Nantwich polls No real surprises, UKIP may get excited by Great Yarmouth but the Crewe one for us is very encouraging. I find the Crewe & Nantwich figures improbable. I think Labour may be ahead currently, but not by that margin. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Dec 17, 2013 9:32:24 GMT
Obviously there is a margin of error on these polls, but the Crewe one is not as unlikely, given the local election results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 17, 2013 10:25:17 GMT
The Conservative lead in Crewe in 2010 was probably boosted by the lingering effects of the byelection; but also note that the Conservative vote up to 2005 had been held down by the personal popularity of Gwyneth Dunwoody and also by a sense that the seat was safe Labour.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 17, 2013 11:08:31 GMT
The importance of these Bown polls is to show the possible effects of what would be the position if people voted for their first choice irrespective of their expectations, their fears and their negative default positions (the party they wished to block from winning); then to see the impact after allowance is made for the present declaration of certainty to turn out and vote; and the effects of considering what one might do in the event of candidates from one's party of choice not being on the ballot.
2015 will be the first time that detailed information will be available in many constituencies providing a reasonable raft of certainty as to likely outcomes of voter actions not nationwide in the abstract but closely focussed on where one lives. I think this will cumulatively have a real effect on turnout and on voting intention. Where say UKIP is within 5% points of closing on the second place or first place it will be an incentive to get on and 'do it' rather than to 'vote safe'. The Crewe result also shows that pragmatism is still in place where there is perceived to be a 'straight fight' Labour-Conservative; but I don't think that will hold for one that is LibDem-Conservative as UKIP don't care who wins that one!
I think if the Conservative vote declines further in places like Crewe the UKIP vote will grow again reflecting the fact that the Conservatives can't win and thus 'no harm' in voting 'first preference'. These Bown polls are vital to maximize the UKIP turnout and could result in a squeeze on Labour and LibDems where it is perceived that UKIP is the best means of defeating the Conservatives and/or the Coalition. If, as I suspect, UKIP have an increasing size of war chest, then there may be more and more such polls with the possibility of a very interesting 2015 outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 17, 2013 13:13:46 GMT
When looking at these Survation polls you should remember that they are not weighted for past vote or even Party ID . The data tables give us some clue as to how representative the ( relatively small ) samples are .
Take Crewe and Nantwich , the sample voted in 2010 Con 46% Lab 44% LD 8% Others 2% so the impressive swing to Labour in the results may be down more to a particularly pro Labour sample in this poll .
Bognor Regis/Littlehampton similarly has a sample which apparently had Labour in 2nd place in 2010 narrowly ahead of the Lib Dems contrary to the actual result .
Folkestone has a sample in which the Lib Dems only had 21% of the 2010 vote instead of the 30% they actually achieved
Great Yarmouth sample again has a labour bias but smaller than the other constituencies .
As these are telephone polls a Labour bias in the samples is to be expected but unlike ICM there is no past vote weighting to correct for this .
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 17, 2013 13:31:48 GMT
When looking at these Survation polls you should remember that they are not weighted for past vote or even Party ID . The data tables give us some clue as to how representative the ( relatively small ) samples are . Take Crewe and Nantwich , the sample voted in 2010 Con 46% Lab 44% LD 8% Others 2% so the impressive swing to Labour in the results may be down more to a particularly pro Labour sample in this poll . Bognor Regis/Littlehampton similarly has a sample which apparently had Labour in 2nd place in 2010 narrowly ahead of the Lib Dems contrary to the actual result . Folkestone has a sample in which the Lib Dems only had 21% of the 2010 vote instead of the 30% they actually achieved Great Yarmouth sample again has a labour bias but smaller than the other constituencies . As these are telephone polls a Labour bias in the samples is to be expected but unlike ICM there is no past vote weighting to correct for this . I consider these points to be part of the benefit for they reflect 'perception' in respondents right down to probable 'false memory' as to what they did at 2010! Thus we have an insight into the changes at work in memory as well as intention. This virtual ramification of pseudo support with intentionality is most instructive of itself. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 17, 2013 13:33:38 GMT
Yes, it is fairly common for more people to "recall" voting Labour in 2010 than actually did - and pollsters are well aware of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 17, 2013 13:45:19 GMT
When looking at these Survation polls you should remember that they are not weighted for past vote or even Party ID . The data tables give us some clue as to how representative the ( relatively small ) samples are . Take Crewe and Nantwich , the sample voted in 2010 Con 46% Lab 44% LD 8% Others 2% so the impressive swing to Labour in the results may be down more to a particularly pro Labour sample in this poll . Bognor Regis/Littlehampton similarly has a sample which apparently had Labour in 2nd place in 2010 narrowly ahead of the Lib Dems contrary to the actual result . Folkestone has a sample in which the Lib Dems only had 21% of the 2010 vote instead of the 30% they actually achieved Great Yarmouth sample again has a labour bias but smaller than the other constituencies . As these are telephone polls a Labour bias in the samples is to be expected but unlike ICM there is no past vote weighting to correct for this . I consider these points to be part of the benefit for they reflect 'perception' in respondents right down to probable 'false memory' as to what they did at 2010! Thus we have an insight into the changes at work in memory as well as intention. This virtual ramification of pseudo support with intentionality is most instructive of itself. No you are totally wrong , it is a demonstrable fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias in their sampling which is why the telephone pollsters correct for it by past vote weighting or party ID . Even Ipsos Mori were forced to introduce a weighting correction by public/private employment following some very poor unweighted polling results There is an article on the ukpollingreport website which explains this |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 17, 2013 13:51:16 GMT
Well Mark! Where is the IMO in your assertion? "It is a demonstrable fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias...." Go on demonstrate it....prove it. Don't just assert. Is it 'the well known fact' that Labourites are more likely to have phones or to be in the phone book (I am not in phone book)?
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 17, 2013 14:28:38 GMT
It is not IMO , it is an established fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias . The history of this is well and fully documented leading to the polling debacle of the 1992 GE and the introduction of past vote weighting first by ICM and then other pollsters post 1992 . The reasons for this known bias are not 100% agreed but it is 100% agreed that it is there . Bob Worcester of Ipsos Mori was the last to hold out against it because of his antipathy to past vote weighting but the Ipsos Mori polling debacle of the London Mayoral election of 2008 forced him to introduce his own unique weighting . For further reading see ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-weighting The introduction of panel polls and the divergence of their polling results from telephone polls is a whole different subject but there is no need to cloud the fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias with this secondary issue which is still of importance . |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 17, 2013 14:36:56 GMT
Ho Ho Ho Ho! I have nothing to add. You say it all!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The reasons for this known bias are not 100% agreed but it is 100% agreed that it is there..."
Just wonderful stuff. So QED and no need for boring evidence. Suit you Sir? Can I interest you in this snake oil?
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Dec 17, 2013 15:07:19 GMT
It is not IMO , it is an established fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias . The history of this is well and fully documented leading to the polling debacle of the 1992 GE and the introduction of past vote weighting first by ICM and then other pollsters post 1992 . The reasons for this known bias are not 100% agreed but it is 100% agreed that it is there . Yes, it was there - but noen of the explanations I have seen suggest it was due to telephone polls having a pro-Labour bias. In fact, I have always heard the opposite. Tory voters used to be the ones who had telephone lines (as the pollsters only call land lines, not mobiles), while those social groups that tend to vote Labour did not have land lines (young people, ethnic minorities, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 17, 2013 15:16:00 GMT
Ho Ho Ho Ho! I have nothing to add. You say it all!!!!!!!!!!!! "The reasons for this known bias are not 100% agreed but it is 100% agreed that it is there..." Just wonderful stuff. So QED and no need for boring evidence. Suit you Sir? Can I interest you in this snake oil? For heaven's sake stop being so blinkered , read the article I have linked to , research other papers and studies that are available on the internet , attend one of the polling industry conferences which are held frequently and are open to the public and you may be able to make an odd post or two which has some basis in fact and knowledge rather than just hope and wishful thinking . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 15:16:25 GMT
Even accepting - and I do - that constituency polls are prone to error, I think having these is good, not just from the point of view of having more information about these specific constituencies, but also because in the long run it might help polling companies get better at constituency polls. I think having a number of these in the short run up to May 2015 could be very interesting for analysing data, even if they are not all that accurate for that election
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,155
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 17, 2013 15:20:24 GMT
I think Mark is probably right to be sceptical of these constituency polls as a means of predicting the outcome of the next election in those constituencies. In any case, constituency polls do not generally have a great record of accuracy. However, from the UKIP point of view, they do show the direction of travel and political trends, even if they show an inaccurate starting point. No contest Trident. I agree all you say. What got to me was the "No you are totally wrong". And the absolutist assertions without evidence, by Mark. Most of us on this site know our way about polls and polling and theory of weighting. It is imprecise stuff but useful for trends of direction. These constituency based polls provide a focus and however crude the result I would wager they are not too far out as to the relative positioning and a possible if not probable result if there had been a poll on that day. My original short overview was not in its totality 'totally wrong' and I have a right to resent that. Mark is too certain and too dogmatic. I am not a tribal Kipper puffing our chances and denigrating the LibDems. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 17, 2013 15:26:38 GMT
It is not IMO , it is an established fact that telephone polls have a pro Labour bias . The history of this is well and fully documented leading to the polling debacle of the 1992 GE and the introduction of past vote weighting first by ICM and then other pollsters post 1992 . The reasons for this known bias are not 100% agreed but it is 100% agreed that it is there . Yes, it was there - but noen of the explanations I have seen suggest it was due to telephone polls having a pro-Labour bias. In fact, I have always heard the opposite. Tory voters used to be the ones who had telephone lines (as the pollsters only call land lines, not mobiles), while those social groups that tend to vote Labour did not have land lines (young people, ethnic minorities, etc). See Curtice and Sparrow MRS papers Vol 52 No 2 Pages 169 - 189 , unfortunately you have to be a member to read it online . There is a report by Martin Boon of ICM viewable on the internet if you search for it . |
|
