The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 19, 2013 17:58:30 GMT
At the end of the day, pollsters showing smaller swings are almost always more accurate in any GE polling. Survation's arguments may be correct - but the fudge factors do help to model the GE squeeze. The real question is, do you try to show what the nation is thinking at a given time or try to push the data towards what people would be thinking in 2 years time come the real election - and that is a more philospohical one. Survation are clearly in the former camp, as UKIP getting 20% in a GE is totally laughable. Yes, yes, YES - that *is* what polling should be about, generally speaking. The trend towards some pollsters trying to effectively predict future events (eg ICM with their LibDem friendly "adjustments") is a most unwelcome one which I deplore. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 19, 2013 18:58:20 GMT
completely ignores the pro Labour bias in telephone polling which has been in evidence for 25 years Yet again - your evidence for this? I have pointed out reasons why this may be in fact the opposite. I remember going to the Greater London Labour party annual meeting about twenty years ago and listening to one speaker (the late Ron huzzard, if memory serves), railing against "new" methods of canvassing like the telephone. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 19, 2013 19:50:19 GMT
At the end of the day, pollsters showing smaller swings are almost always more accurate in any GE polling. Survation's arguments may be correct - but the fudge factors do help to model the GE squeeze. The real question is, do you try to show what the nation is thinking at a given time or try to push the data towards what people would be thinking in 2 years time come the real election - and that is a more philospohical one. Survation are clearly in the former camp, as UKIP getting 20% in a GE is totally laughable. Yes, yes, YES - that *is* what polling should be about, generally speaking. The trend towards some pollsters trying to effectively predict future events (eg ICM with their LibDem friendly "adjustments") is a most unwelcome one which I deplore. The ICM so called Lib Dem friendly adjustments are not a new addition to their methodology but has been there for many years . Currently the adjustment favours the Lib Dems but that is not always the case . It favours by design the party or parties with the most Don't Knows amongst those who voted for them in the previous general election . In the last parliament that was the Labour party the adjustment correctly predicting that many of them would in fact end up voting Labour . |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Dec 19, 2013 21:28:54 GMT
I have a feeling (NOT evidence) that the middle classes are more likely to be ex directory.
On the other hand I guess that those with no land line are less likely to be middle class.
I would guess that both those can be modelled for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 21:48:46 GMT
At the end of the day, pollsters showing smaller swings are almost always more accurate in any GE polling. Survation's arguments may be correct - but the fudge factors do help to model the GE squeeze. The real question is, do you try to show what the nation is thinking at a given time or try to push the data towards what people would be thinking in 2 years time come the real election - and that is a more philospohical one. Survation are clearly in the former camp, as UKIP getting 20% in a GE is totally laughable. Yes, yes, YES - that *is* what polling should be about, generally speaking. The trend towards some pollsters trying to effectively predict future events (eg ICM with their LibDem friendly "adjustments") is a most unwelcome one which I deplore. I think its good we see both approaches - if modelling the data in some way makes it more predictive consistently then it is of value. If someone says Dont Know and has previously voted Tory and UKIP then clearly their future vote is likely to be right wing - for example, they just have not chosen which of the two parties. Totally excluding them from the figures totally it could be argued was not representative. Maybe there should be specific Don't Know options - e.g. tory or ukip, tory or labour, LD or labour, LD or Tory etc. etc. as well as the I haven't a clue (probably a non voter to be honest). The treatment of Don't Knows is a bit crude IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 19, 2013 21:54:42 GMT
Phone polls control for ex-directory numbers. They randomly dial numbers in the appropriate area; if the call doesn't connect then it doesn't cost them anything.
|
|
