UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Down in Rochester it's still neck and neck in my opinion.
Tories very slight lead based on people who voted in 2010 GE. Almost the entire UKIP lead in surveys relies on turning out the 2010 GE non voters, notoriously difficult to do.
Time to take a leaf out of Labour's book and get to work on postal ballots? Labour are going to cream you in 2015 if you don't up your game people.
Meanwhile accusations and threats of legal action flies backwards and forwards between UKIP and Tories.
Cons accused of push-polling where under the guise of polling they ask deliberately provocative questions designed to smear. Problem occurs when they poll the wrong people who are sufficiently aware to realise what's going on. Tories deny and threaten legal action but it's clear Cons are playing dirty.
Tories very slight lead based on people who voted in 2010 GE. Almost the entire UKIP lead in surveys relies on turning out the 2010 GE non voters, notoriously difficult to do.
Time to take a leaf out of Labour's book and get to work on postal ballots? Labour are going to cream you in 2015 if you don't up your game people.
Meanwhile accusations and threats of legal action flies backwards and forwards between UKIP and Tories.
Cons accused of push-polling where under the guise of polling they ask deliberately provocative questions designed to smear. Problem occurs when they poll the wrong people who are sufficiently aware to realise what's going on. Tories deny and threaten legal action but it's clear Cons are playing dirty.
AJS- said:
Neck and neck? I just had a quick look on the bookmakers sites as I trust their research the most, their motives being clear. Ladbrokes put UKIP on 1/25 and the Tories on 10/1.
I think it may be closer than recent polls have suggested, agree that the bookies are probably the best poll to go by though.
lovin' it.don4l said:
The latest polls have UKIP 15 points ahead of Labour.
UKIP 48%
Con 33%
Lab 16%
LD 1%
You are missing the point. UKIP 48%
Con 33%
Lab 16%
LD 1%
The whole of that UKIP lead relies on people saying they will vote UKIP who, for whatever reason, didn't vote last time.
If you exclude 2010 DNV then it's very close.
All the evidence suggests that getting the last time non-voters to turn out this timeIis very difficult. Farage and UKIP keep maintaining that they are mobilising people who had completely disengaged from the electoral process. Maybe they are, time will tell to what extent that is true.
But imo the lead on the day if it is a lead for UKIP, will be nothing like that quoted above.
Now you don't have to believe me, but don't kill the messenger and you're advised to take note of the message and learn ftom it.
What does another party do which normally suffers at the ballot box with low turnouts? Yes I am talking about Labour. They get troops on the street and tie up the postal ballot. As much as I hate that with all the connotations of dodgy practices it works.
If a party wants a seat at the big table it better get organised and start being professional.
This is all intended as constructive criticism.
FiF said:
don4l said:
The latest polls have UKIP 15 points ahead of Labour.
UKIP 48%
Con 33%
Lab 16%
LD 1%
You are missing the point. UKIP 48%
Con 33%
Lab 16%
LD 1%
The whole of that UKIP lead relies on people saying they will vote UKIP who, for whatever reason, didn't vote last time.
If you exclude 2010 DNV then it's very close.
UKIP are far higher in polls than ever before, so those people were not only non-voters they were non-pollers IYSWIM.
There's a good chance that the two go together and the bookies are aware of that. The people previously not saying they support UKIP and not voting are now moving over to a position of saying they support UKIP and voting. They have seen something worth expressing support for and therefore voting for.
Not shooting the messenger, there could well be some drop off. But looking at the Clacton result here it seems that UKIP's actual results were towards the top end of the polling, while the other parties were at the lower end of their projected results. One explanation could be that as the election came around and the polls held up more people actually switched from the main parties. Another explanation could be that the strong poll results actually did motivate those who didn't vote in 2010 to go out and vote UKIP. A third explanation could be that those who would still have voted for the main parties simply decided to stay home.
It could be something else entirely, and Rochester isn't Clacton, but a 48 to 33 lead at this stage is hardly neck and neck.
It could be something else entirely, and Rochester isn't Clacton, but a 48 to 33 lead at this stage is hardly neck and neck.
turbobloke said:
Agreed but why exclude them? Is there not another point to note?
UKIP are far higher in polls than ever before, so those people were not only non-voters they were non-pollers IYSWIM.
There's a good chance that the two go together and the bookies are aware of that. The people previously not saying they support UKIP and not voting are now moving over to a position of saying they support UKIP and voting. They have seen something worth expressing support for and therefore voting for.
The bookies odds at the start represent their considered view. As time goes on the odds increasingly reflect the amount of money laid.UKIP are far higher in polls than ever before, so those people were not only non-voters they were non-pollers IYSWIM.
There's a good chance that the two go together and the bookies are aware of that. The people previously not saying they support UKIP and not voting are now moving over to a position of saying they support UKIP and voting. They have seen something worth expressing support for and therefore voting for.
Why do it like this, ie discount the last time DNVs. Well technically that's the correct way to do it based on previous data. To do otherwise requires a certain degree of belief application rather than treating the data correctly.
Of course inclusion of that data is another way of doing it, as is inclusion or exclusion of data based on the response to the question of how likely are people going to vote.
The method of the data interpretation is everything and of course you can give equal weighting to every single response. However the method I have used was the one that gave the most accurate forecast for GE2010 and so sticking with it thanks very much. That doesn't mean to say that another derivation won't be more accurate this time but that needs the application of unscientific assumptions.
And we know where that can lead.
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed but why exclude them? Is there not another point to note?
UKIP are far higher in polls than ever before, so those people were not only non-voters they were non-pollers IYSWIM.
There's a good chance that the two go together and the bookies are aware of that. The people previously not saying they support UKIP and not voting are now moving over to a position of saying they support UKIP and voting. They have seen something worth expressing support for and therefore voting for.
The bookies odds at the start represent their considered view. As time goes on the odds increasingly reflect the amount of money laid.UKIP are far higher in polls than ever before, so those people were not only non-voters they were non-pollers IYSWIM.
There's a good chance that the two go together and the bookies are aware of that. The people previously not saying they support UKIP and not voting are now moving over to a position of saying they support UKIP and voting. They have seen something worth expressing support for and therefore voting for.
FiF said:
Why do it like this, ie discount the last time DNVs. Well technically that's the correct way to do it based on previous data. To do otherwise requires a certain degree of belief application rather than treating the data correctly.
Surely all poll results, and their use by a reader, are belief application - using the the poll for anything other than chip paper applies a belief that people polled and believable and will apply their X as they claim!What they did before is surely less of an issue compared to whether or not they are liars, and whether or not they are irrevocably decided on the matter.
turbobloke said:
Surely all poll results, and their use by a reader, are belief application - using the this poll for anything other than chip paper applies a belief that people polled and believable and will apply their X as they claim!
What they did before is surely less of an issue compared to whether or not they are liars, and whether or not they are irrevocably decided on the matter.
That's a problem I have touched on before in volume 2. There is an inherent problem with recalled vote data that people have notoriously bad memories. They say they voted when they didn't.What they did before is surely less of an issue compared to whether or not they are liars, and whether or not they are irrevocably decided on the matter.
They say they voted for the winning party when they voted for the losers, in other words they lie and all manner of other introductions of errors.
Indeed one way of handling it is to ignore all that and just introduce voting intention plain and simple.
Equally is an online poll as relevant as a street poll or a telephone poll or mixture thereof.
All the pollsters have their methods of gathering and handling the data. The responsible ones declare that and put margin of error footnotes in place. These usually get ignored by everyone other than wonks.
The point is which method best fits the actual results and shouldn't that be the one to be used unless there is very good and quantifiable reason to change? Of course it depends if there is an agenda in the background. I don't have to explain that to you.
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
Surely all poll results, and their use by a reader, are belief application - using the poll for anything other than chip paper applies a belief that people polled are believable and will apply their X as they claim!
What they did before is surely less of an issue compared to whether or not they are liars, and whether or not they are irrevocably decided on the matter.
That's a problem I have touched on before in volume 2. There is an inherent problem with recalled vote data that people have notoriously bad memories. They say they voted when they didn't.What they did before is surely less of an issue compared to whether or not they are liars, and whether or not they are irrevocably decided on the matter.
They say they voted for the winning party when they voted for the losers, in other words they lie and all manner of other introductions of errors.
Indeed one way of handling it is to ignore all that and just introduce voting intention plain and simple.
Equally is an online poll as relevant as a street poll or a telephone poll or mixture thereof.
All the pollsters have their methods of gathering and handling the data. The responsible ones declare that and put margin of error footnotes in place. These usually get ignored by everyone other than wonks.
The point is which method best fits the actual results and shouldn't that be the one to be used unless there is very good and quantifiable reason to change? Of course it depends if there is an agenda in the background. I don't have to explain that to you.
@Nigel_Farage: German paper Der Spiegel reports Berlin wants UK EU exit if we try and limit immigration. Still think you can renegotiate, Mr Cameron?
@GuidoFawkes: Der Spiegel "If Cameron insists on immigration Merkel will adjust her efforts to keep Britain in the EU." 1/2
On iPhone, cannot find anything in der spiegel
@GuidoFawkes: Der Spiegel "If Cameron insists on immigration Merkel will adjust her efforts to keep Britain in the EU." 1/2
On iPhone, cannot find anything in der spiegel
This is what influential scribblers are spreading internationally (New York times), from one Hugo Dixon, editor at large of Reuters News:
'David Cameron is on the verge of making a historic error. The Sunday Times says the British prime minister has already decided to set an annual cap on the number of Continental Europeans who are legally entitled to work in the country.
....
Mr. Cameron is, therefore, under huge pressure to match Mr. Johnson’s pledge on quotas — to hold off the external threat from UKIP and the internal threat from the London mayor.
The prime minister’s allies at home and abroad must try their hardest to stop him from making this error.
Other European Union leaders should make it clear to Mr. Cameron that they have a red line when it comes to the free movement of people. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has already done this. But others should do so, too, either privately or publicly.
It would be great if other European Union leaders could at the same time offer Mr. Cameron an olive branch. They should repeat Ms. Merkel’s message that while the free movement of people is nonnegotiable, they support tightening up the rules so that it is harder for immigrants to abuse benefit systems.
Very few Continental Europeans actually come to Britain to live off benefits. But the voters have been so whipped up into believing that they are being swamped by scroungers that Mr. Cameron unfortunately needs to secure some deal on this topic.'
what a lot of s
te this little toad is putting about as if it were fact.
What is HE getting out of it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/business/interna...
'David Cameron is on the verge of making a historic error. The Sunday Times says the British prime minister has already decided to set an annual cap on the number of Continental Europeans who are legally entitled to work in the country.
....
Mr. Cameron is, therefore, under huge pressure to match Mr. Johnson’s pledge on quotas — to hold off the external threat from UKIP and the internal threat from the London mayor.
The prime minister’s allies at home and abroad must try their hardest to stop him from making this error.
Other European Union leaders should make it clear to Mr. Cameron that they have a red line when it comes to the free movement of people. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has already done this. But others should do so, too, either privately or publicly.
It would be great if other European Union leaders could at the same time offer Mr. Cameron an olive branch. They should repeat Ms. Merkel’s message that while the free movement of people is nonnegotiable, they support tightening up the rules so that it is harder for immigrants to abuse benefit systems.
Very few Continental Europeans actually come to Britain to live off benefits. But the voters have been so whipped up into believing that they are being swamped by scroungers that Mr. Cameron unfortunately needs to secure some deal on this topic.'
what a lot of s
te this little toad is putting about as if it were fact.What is HE getting out of it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/business/interna...
Foppo said:
What do you mean do you agree with this article or not?
Cameron won't be able to turn the clock back,the E.U.is about free movement of people.
It is up to Immigration to stop criminals entering the U.K.
for the slow thinkers:Cameron won't be able to turn the clock back,the E.U.is about free movement of people.
It is up to Immigration to stop criminals entering the U.K.
NO I don't agree with the article, that is why I called the writer a traitor and a little toad.
If you actually read the article it may become clearer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff