|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2014 22:06:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 22:20:58 GMT
Something for everyone in that lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 22:25:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 23:11:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2014 23:16:04 GMT
One thing it says is that one Lib Dem is happy enough to put up the worlds for Cameron and Miliband but dares not post Ashcroft's wordle about Nick Clegg.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 5, 2014 1:19:58 GMT
One thing it says is that one Lib Dem is happy enough to put up the worlds for Cameron and Miliband but dares not post Ashcroft's wordle about Nick Clegg. Is there a separate neologism for a wordle in a composed image or a portrait? Should there be? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 5, 2014 1:33:47 GMT
Just how helpful do we think this to be? For the wealth of detail and the considerable base I imagine it cost quite a bit; yet what real use is it and how reliable are the threads taken from it? I have no experience of the methodology as actually employed in the field. I have read a bit around the subject and was involved in elements of polling (not politics) decades ago in cruder times. Then it seemed to me that the nuancing mainly came from the people used for the detailed interrogation. It seemed all too easy to 'create a climate' or to 'enhance an expectation' from within the focus group, even if quite unconsciously. I sometimes put on file a form of 'qualified objection' and was told years later that some of my objections had possibly been vindicated by results analysis. I would prefer this sort of exercise to be done for parliamentary by-elections, before during and after the event, with close comparisons of those results, particularly concentrating on a detailed questioning of those who voted 'differently to expressed intention' and to 'non-voters who had originally expressed a strong intention to vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 2:12:38 GMT
So it's smug competent out of touch and posh vs weak useless idiot wallace.
|
|
|
|
Post by timokane on Jan 5, 2014 11:42:14 GMT
To me the key finding of the poll is that 34% of people who voted Tory in 2010 are going to vote for someone else come 2015. Everything else is minutiae really. There is an honest acceptance early on in the report that Europe is simply not an issue in many parts of the country and that cost of living is uppermost in many peoples minds. I like the detailed layout of the data tables which makes for easy comparison with the Yougov daily tracker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 12:40:15 GMT
To me the key finding of the poll is that 34% of people who voted Tory in 2010 are going to vote for someone else come 2015. Everything else is minutiae really. There is an honest acceptance early on in the report that Europe is simply not an issue in many parts of the country and that cost of living is uppermost in many peoples minds. I like the detailed layout of the data tables which makes for easy comparison with the Yougov daily tracker. Why aren't we pollling in the mid 20s then? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2014 12:45:18 GMT
To me the key finding of the poll is that 34% of people who voted Tory in 2010 are going to vote for someone else come 2015. Everything else is minutiae really. There is an honest acceptance early on in the report that Europe is simply not an issue in many parts of the country and that cost of living is uppermost in many peoples minds. I like the detailed layout of the data tables which makes for easy comparison with the Yougov daily tracker. Why aren't we pollling in the mid 20s then? a) You are only slightly above it b) Because most moderate Tories who often go Lib Dem in midterms are sticking with the Tories now - no point in switching given that it's a Tory/Lib Dem coalition, and the government is forced to be moderate instead of giving in to some of its culturally conservative/extreme free market supporters. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 5, 2014 12:45:31 GMT
Because your support is still propped up by most of the media?
Seriously, where would the Tories be without it??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 12:48:26 GMT
Im not sure newspapers are as important as all that these days. The way you have treated the private media means that you don't deserve their support anyway. (This is not meant to be a defense of Cameron's policy on Leveson)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 5, 2014 12:53:16 GMT
No they aren't as important or powerful as they once were (one of the reasons why Tory hopes for a repeat of 1992 are likely misplaced)
But they still have influence - undoubtedly part of the "public perception" of Miliband cited above is media-led.
(and "media" doesn't just mean the papers, of course - the BBC in particular has toed the pro-coalition line very obediently since 2010, with only a few exceptions)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 12:57:28 GMT
No they aren't as important or powerful as they once were (one of the reasons why Tory hopes for a repeat of 1992 are likely misplaced) But they still have influence - undoubtedly part of the "public perception" of Miliband cited above is media-led. (and "media" doesn't just mean the papers, of course - the BBC in particular has toed the pro-coalition line very obediently since 2010, with only a few exceptions) The BBC is always pro-establishment, whether that establishment is the coalition or Blairism, metropolitan and culturally liberal. You are still very lucky it exists, as it is still probably better than whatever would replace it were we not under the bizarre impression that having news produced by a state-sponered organization is an appropriate way for media in a modern liberal democracy to be ran. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2014 13:02:45 GMT
The BBC isn't state-run.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jan 5, 2014 13:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jan 5, 2014 14:27:47 GMT
Which of course is not what Joe said Sponsored was his wording. That is not an unreasonable description. I think that 'since the mix works in broadcasting, do't fix it' is my personal POV. And I don't actually see the BBC as estalishment compliant. I think both under Labpur and the current coslitipn it is mildly critical. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2014 14:33:11 GMT
Which of course is not what Joe said Sponsored was his wording. Not originally it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jan 5, 2014 14:44:56 GMT
OK. For the record I prefer to make that type of change obvious as a change. Although not intened as such it feels devious to amend it as if it had always so bee. And the note saying amended is not always very noticeable on my mobile.
|
|
