Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 18:33:27 GMT
This assumes that the pollsters will not attempt to make their own such corrections. (One thing noted in the inquiry was the propensity of numerous pollsters to change methodology in the immediate run up to the election.)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 19, 2016 18:35:22 GMT
The consequence of Labour's latest round of constitutional reforms, by contrast, has been the creation of an insoluble vacuum of authority. It's curiously reminiscent of the situation of dual power (the Duma versus the Soviets) in the Russian Empire following the February Revolution. Of course, that situation was ultimately resolved by the "great simplification" of the Bolshevik coup, but there is no equivalent way out for Labour. This particular tragi-comedy will run and run. Its not insoluble actually, but the "solution" (the PLP becoming more in tune with the membership) is one not everybody will be happy with. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 19, 2016 18:38:47 GMT
The question then becomes what is the Labour Party for, how representative is the membership, does this matter and etc. Its eternal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 18:41:13 GMT
Isn't that, pretty much, what the pollsters are now doing anyway? The main problem seems to be unrepresentative samples. Surveys conducted by the BES and BSA, which had genuinely random samples, did not suffer the same problems. Unfortunately, replicating their methodology would make frequent polling uneconomic. Changing the weighting of samples doesn't work indefinitely or else we'd never have got into this situation in the first place - the "appropriate" level of weighting changes over time. It's a tough one. |
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jan 19, 2016 19:17:05 GMT
Part of the problem is the stuff polling can never measure. All those who refuse to give an answer or say they don't know, yet who do vote for someone on the day. All those others who for whatever reason change their minds at the last minute. Those who - for whatever reason - give dishonest answers to pollsters. And those who express an intention of voting for someone, but just don't bother voting on the day. Or those who say they won't vote but then do.
There is no way of knowing to what extent this will favour or disadvantage any particular party. Nor any reason to assume that it will always favour the same parties to the same extent in every election. So no way of accurately weighting this.
There will always be a margin of error - that's already a given - but sometimes it may well simply be larger than the pollsters allow for.
And also, even a sample of 1000 or so people might not be as representative as is ideal, because it cannot really hope to accurately reflect the smaller social demographics every time. 1% would, after all, be only 10 people in the sample. So either such a small demographic wouldn't be included at all, which could miss something significant, or if it is the sample would be too small to give a reliably accurate indicator of opinion. This also increases the potential scope for widening the margin of error.
The simple fact is, we almost certainly place far too much faith in polls, especially if they are all predicting similar results. Yet that similarity may simply reflect similar methodologies and/or similar forms of weighting. And therefore similar inherent flaws or potential inaccuracies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 19:21:50 GMT
We had a referendum debate in Putney Conservatives. 2 to 1 in. (I voted out). I don't really see our activists as remotely socially Conservative. Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! I'm not sure that these days it is the sort of seat that would go Labour in any situation bar a very popular and very right wing Labour, and even then it would be a push. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 19:41:22 GMT
Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! I'm not sure that these days it is the sort of seat that would go Labour in any situation bar a very popular and very right wing Labour, and even then it would be a push. The Conservatives are pretty well dug in. Social change and a generally effective and dynamic local council have both worked in their favour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 20:02:41 GMT
The consequence of Labour's latest round of constitutional reforms, by contrast, has been the creation of an insoluble vacuum of authority. It's curiously reminiscent of the situation of dual power (the Duma versus the Soviets) in the Russian Empire following the February Revolution. Of course, that situation was ultimately resolved by the "great simplification" of the Bolshevik coup, but there is no equivalent way out for Labour. This particular tragi-comedy will run and run. Its not insoluble actually, but the "solution" (the PLP becoming more in tune with the membership) is one not everybody will be happy with. Given that MPs are irremoveable between elections, and that large-scale cleansing via deselection or retirement would only exacerbate the bitterness of the existing impasse, that is a very long-term "cure" indeed, and one which the patient might not actually survive. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 19, 2016 22:18:27 GMT
Two things there: 1) I am with Merseymike in that I can see some uber-Blairite types deciding the game is not worth the candle and going off to make money/network instead; 2) it doesn't have to be actual personnel changes, some MPs could adapt to the different climate - just as many of course did with the rise of New Labour. We could see significant change here five years from now, even without many deselections. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 19, 2016 22:55:35 GMT
I think Labour did gain votes from the LibDems but lost others to Ukip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2016 22:59:36 GMT
Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! I'm not sure that these days it is the sort of seat that would go Labour in any situation bar a very popular and very right wing Labour, and even then it would be a push. The marginality or otherwise of the seat is neither here nor there since we aren't discussing the profile of the overall population but of Conservative supporters (or rather more specifically Conservative activists) and here the profile might match that of Conservatives in some marginal seats (eh in Chiswick) or indeed in safe Labour seats (eg Clapham) but will be very different to that of Conservative activists in the Home counties let alone in rural Lincolnshire or the West Midlands or Yorkshire. Not that they are all Colonel Blimps elsewhere but the two to one in favour of the EU is a bit of a givewawy that they are very atypical of Tory members in the country at large (where I think the figures may be more or less reversed). Wandsworth has always had one of the lowest UKIP votes in European elections and certainly one of the lowest for a Tory voting area (or to put it another way one of the lowest ratios of UKIP to Conservative votes) which is also telling since UKIP's vote in these elections has always been heavily augmented by the votes of Conservatives (including activists, councillors &etc) |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 23:15:09 GMT
Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! I'm not sure that these days it is the sort of seat that would go Labour in any situation bar a very popular and very right wing Labour, and even then it would be a push. Agreed. I was only pulling your string. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 23:17:39 GMT
Aberdeenshire Conservatives used to be socially conservative and opposed to devolution. They are now socially liberal and devo enthusiasts. You might expect me to be pleased but I am not, the fact is that they have no actual principles, they are simply small c conservatives. My worry is that they would come to accept separatism. They will. Most politicians are trimmers concerned with the easily possible and with enjoying power and office even if only for its own sake. |
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jan 20, 2016 0:14:05 GMT
I think Labour did gain votes from the LibDems but lost others to Ukip. I think exactly the same. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 20, 2016 0:26:18 GMT
You know there will already be literally thousands of people who will not be able to remember with absolute certainty who they voted for last May. By the end of this parliament the figure will be in the millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jan 20, 2016 0:29:39 GMT
Two things there: 1) I am with Merseymike in that I can see some uber-Blairite types deciding the game is not worth the candle and going off to make money/network instead; 2) it doesn't have to be actual personnel changes, some MPs could adapt to the different climate - just as many of course did with the rise of New Labour. We could see significant change here five years from now, even without many deselections. Of one thing I am certain. New Labour's day is done. It's time has been and gone, and it is time for the party to move on. That doesn't necessarily mean that Corbyn and all he stands for on every issue is automatically the right replacement. He just happened to be the only candidate representing real change at the time. But the party cannot go back. The inherent flaws in New Labour thinking and policy have become increasingly apparent with time, obvious to almost all it seems but Blairites and Tories. If Corbyn is not the right replacement, the party needs to find someone or something who is before it can even hope to replace him. Real change is needed in so many areas of this country. So many millions whom Labour ought to exist to champion need such change. Labour needs their votes. It is time to move on beyond New Labour, to build a broader, stronger coalition of support that embraces those whom New Labour cynically took for granted or ignored, whilst also still appealing to the more progressive elements amongst the more affluent middle classes. It can be done. But New Labour will never do it. It's appeal is too narrow now. It doesn't even recognise the need for such change. And as such, is a busted flush. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2016 10:59:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 20, 2016 12:49:54 GMT
Why would one give any more credence or respect to this report than to the original stream of polls? What fresh method and routines did they use? Why would the 'polling' of people about what they said and did earlier be any better this time around? In short......who thinks this report has much useful value?
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Jan 20, 2016 20:25:27 GMT
I thought rather disappointing? Yes, it was a bit disappointing. I think I'll still listen to the second episode though. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 31, 2016 15:44:55 GMT
|
|
