iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on May 1, 2015 16:39:56 GMT
Probably a good idea to have the 'final batch of the campaign' almost a week before the election. Any differences with the actual results can be ascribed to late swing. In fact, if he is still not putting candidates' names on, I suggest one could add 3-4% on to incumbents in the C seats, and more in general for the LD seats Ashcroft has polled. And then there is, of course, 'late swing' too ... Would you really expect such a difference, given the two stage questioning?
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 1, 2015 16:44:39 GMT
Yes, i would, based on my own experience in taking constituency polls for Harris. It's one thing saying 'think of your constituency', another prompting with the names. For example, in 1987 in Cheltenham we had Richard Holme, or rather the Liberal Alliance, ahead until we put the names on, when Charles Irving leapt into the lead he secured in the election.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 1, 2015 16:47:44 GMT
Probably a good idea to have the 'final batch of the campaign' almost a week before the election. Any differences with the actual results can be ascribed to late swing. In fact, if he is still not putting candidates' names on, I suggest one could add 3-4% on to incumbents in the C seats, and more in general for the LD seats Ashcroft has polled. And then there is, of course, 'late swing' too ... I think this is probably about right, at least in the case of high profile MPs, although I am not entirely convinced.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,554
|
Post by Khunanup on May 1, 2015 18:19:44 GMT
I pray the numbers are right for Peterborough. For the sake of the people of Peterborough (including members of my family) and sanity in general it will be a blessed relief to see the back of Wacko Jacko.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 1, 2015 19:11:45 GMT
Indeed, I suspect it will turn out to have been someones canvassing results. I was just wondering if it was pointing to a shock LD gain Why would that be a shock?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 4, 2015 14:51:35 GMT
ICM, commissioned by The Guardian, have done a constituency poll in Sheffield Hallam. Results out this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on May 4, 2015 16:40:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 4, 2015 16:53:11 GMT
Difference when candidates named as I have suggested. Bear in mind when considering other constituency polls, especially with an incumbent, and even more with a LD incumbent.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on May 4, 2015 17:02:24 GMT
Very interesting. Differences from Ashcroft:
General Question: Labour - 34% (-3%) Lib Dem - 32% (+2%) Conservative - 21 (+1%) UKIP - 8 (+-0%) Green - 4% (-1%)
Constituency Question: Lib Dem - 42% (+6%) Labour - 35% (-2%) Conservative - 12% (-3%) UKIP - 7% (+-0%) Green - 3% (-1%)
So even putting aside the differences in the headline figures, it looks pretty clear that naming the incumbent does make a difference. And let's bear in mind that Clegg is not the most popular incumbent!
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 4, 2015 17:16:19 GMT
Difference when candidates named as I have suggested. Bear in mind when considering other constituency polls, especially with an incumbent, and even more with a LD incumbent. If the actual votes back this up on Thursday then Ashcroft is going to look like a right tit for stubbornly refusing to name the candidates in his constituency polls.
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on May 4, 2015 17:44:25 GMT
Very interesting. Differences from Ashcroft: General Question: Labour - 34% (-3%) Lib Dem - 32% (+2%) Conservative - 21 (+1%) UKIP - 8 (+-0%) Green - 4% (-1%) Constituency Question: Lib Dem - 42% (+6%) Labour - 35% (-2%) Conservative - 12% (-3%) UKIP - 7% (+-0%) Green - 3% (-1%) So even putting aside the differences in the headline figures, it looks pretty clear that naming the incumbent does make a difference. And let's bear in mind that Clegg is not the most popular incumbent! Technically the general question is not quite a VI question without named candidates , it is more a general question as to which party people would support irrespective of constituency or candidates
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 4, 2015 17:50:16 GMT
What a waste of time and money, then.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on May 4, 2015 17:51:23 GMT
Very interesting. Differences from Ashcroft: General Question: Labour - 34% (-3%) Lib Dem - 32% (+2%) Conservative - 21 (+1%) UKIP - 8 (+-0%) Green - 4% (-1%) Constituency Question: Lib Dem - 42% (+6%) Labour - 35% (-2%) Conservative - 12% (-3%) UKIP - 7% (+-0%) Green - 3% (-1%) So even putting aside the differences in the headline figures, it looks pretty clear that naming the incumbent does make a difference. And let's bear in mind that Clegg is not the most popular incumbent! Technically the general question is not quite a VI question without named candidates , it is more a general question as to which party people would support irrespective of constituency or candidates I know. It is the same as Ashcroft's first question.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on May 4, 2015 17:52:09 GMT
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on May 4, 2015 17:52:44 GMT
What a waste of time and money, then. I take it you are talking about Ashcroft? If so, I would disagree, because, even if you think there is a systematic error, you can extrapolate to a degree as to the actual result.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 4, 2015 18:31:02 GMT
Difference when candidates named as I have suggested. Bear in mind when considering other constituency polls, especially with an incumbent, and even more with a LD incumbent. If the actual votes back this up on Thursday then Ashcroft is going to look like a right tit for stubbornly refusing to name the candidates in his constituency polls. Surely that depends on the results across the marginals that he's polled. Right now, we don't know whether naming candidates is more or less accurate than just asking a generic "in your constituency" question. It is possible that mentioning the names could overstate the constituency effect.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,799
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on May 4, 2015 19:17:59 GMT
If the actual votes back this up on Thursday then Ashcroft is going to look like a right tit for stubbornly refusing to name the candidates in his constituency polls. Surely that depends on the results across the marginals that he's polled. Right now, we don't know whether naming candidates is more or less accurate than just asking a generic "in your constituency" question. It is possible that mentioning the names could overstate the constituency effect. I don't get this argument. The name will be on the ballot paper!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 19:32:10 GMT
What an eye opener. I'd love to see more polls showing what effect naming the incumbent has, especially in Conservative and Lib Dem marginals, plus all those seats the SNP are supposed to be sweeping up from Labour.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 4, 2015 19:38:53 GMT
Difference when candidates named as I have suggested. Bear in mind when considering other constituency polls, especially with an incumbent, and even more with a LD incumbent. If the actual votes back this up on Thursday then Ashcroft is going to look like a right tit for stubbornly refusing to name the candidates in his constituency polls. Quite. More troublingly (is that a word?) could his polling have influenced voting in some cases?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 4, 2015 19:40:50 GMT
Surely that depends on the results across the marginals that he's polled. Right now, we don't know whether naming candidates is more or less accurate than just asking a generic "in your constituency" question. It is possible that mentioning the names could overstate the constituency effect. I don't get this argument. The name will be on the ballot paper! The point is that we don't know what the most accurate way to do constituency polling is. Whilst it's obvious that there needs to be some form of constituency question to account for tactical voting, we don't know whether it's more accurate to simply name the parties, or to name the candidates, or whether it makes no material difference. In order to determine this, we need a number of constituency polls (for the same constituencies) carried out close to each other (and, ideally, to the actual election). Also, they need to use more-or-less the same methodology (so take the same stance on adjusting for turnout, reallocating don't knows etc.).
|
|