UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
The latest from Ashcroft.
Pity about the colour coding mismatch!My take on that is that the trends show Labour in a shallow decline, Conservatives flat, UKIP flat, greens in shallow ascent and LibDems drifting into irrelevance. If those trends are not bucked, the election will, as most predict produce an inconclusive result.
Zod said:
Pity about the colour coding mismatch!
My take on that is that the trends show Labour in a shallow decline, Conservatives flat, UKIP flat, greens in shallow ascent and LibDems drifting into irrelevance. If those trends are not bucked, the election will, as most predict produce an inconclusive result.
Messy result, unless Cameron can pull out the proverbial rabbit. EM cannot. EU/Immigration, how to finesse that one.My take on that is that the trends show Labour in a shallow decline, Conservatives flat, UKIP flat, greens in shallow ascent and LibDems drifting into irrelevance. If those trends are not bucked, the election will, as most predict produce an inconclusive result.
Yazar said:
King 
said:
said: He may be a complete nutter but on this he has a point. Unless we were to close the borders in advance of a Brexit, without warning, there would be no way of stopping a tidal wave of immigration. It could make the partition of India look like a well organised garden party.
It doesn't matter. A bit of common-sense and they will leave on their own accord. A migrant on minimum wage + top-up benefits + free health + free schoools etc can survive
A migrant in minimum wage having to pay out for everything will soon find it non worthwhile.
So give benefits to those migrants in roles which we cannot do without/who have worked x amount of years, and remove from the big issue/car washers types.
An east european immigrant living in a mass occupancy rented house can survive on less than the minimum wage let alone the minimum wage.What is left after those 'shared' costs gets sent home where it is still twice as much if not more than the local wage for the same job assuming there is any work there.
As it stands all the messages coming from UKIP are going to alienate the Labour swing vote that it needs not attract it.While it is an insult to the intelligence of that vote to suggest that what Farage is offering is an attractive policy.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th November 17:11
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th November 17:12
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th November 17:13
King said:
said:PRTVR said:
USA Canada Australia and lots of other countries have control over immigration, do you level the same argument against them ?
No, I don't level such accusations against them. Whatever you feel about their laws regarding immigration, they tend to be properly legislated.BlackLabel said:
The latest from Ashcroft.
How is this the latest? There's one here: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20... which is dated today (24 Nov). Anyway, this is a question for FiF, who seems to knwo abit more than the average punter about polling and surveys.
The rubric used by Ashcroft is as follows:
"1,004 adults were interviewed by telephone between 21 and 23 November 2014. Results have been weighted to be representative of all adults in Great Britain. Half of the interviews were conducted by landline and half by mobile phone. Results are weighted by recalled past vote at the last general election and stated likelihood to turn out at the next. A proportion of those who don't know or refuse to say how they will vote are re-allocated to the party they voted for at the 2010 general election."
How does the weighting work? And that last sentence: 1004 were interviewed; an undisclosed proportion declined to answer, so we took a guess for them rather than mark them down as "don't know/refuse to answer".
At what point (and I really don't know - this is a genuine question) does polling cease to be polling in the literal sense and become guessing passed off as polling? The scope for manipulation of data, as opposed to reporting of data, seems massive, but is poll data really illegitimately manipulated?
Greg66 said:
How is this the latest? There's one here: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20... which is dated today (24 Nov).
?
So 27% expect a Conservative government, 13 expect a Con-Lib coalition, 26% expect a Labour government and 13% a Lab-Lib coalition, but 59% expect DC to be PM. That means pretty well all the don't knows expect a Conservative or Con-Lib government.?
Either party would have to fall only slightly short to have the LibDems hold the balance of power, given how few seats they look likely to win.
The leader in the worst position though, has to be Miliband. If he accepts support from Sturgeon or (unlikely) goes into coalition with the SNP, then the price will presumably be a referendum by 2017. That gives him the prospect of losing the SNP support if (as would seem not unlikely in those circumstances) the Scots voted for independence. Then Labour would be out.
Greg66 said:
How is this the latest? There's one here: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20... which is dated today (24 Nov).
My mistake - posted the wrong poll at first. Corrected it later.So I think we can drop the rally cry of "vote UKIP, get Labour" and replace it with
"vote UKIP, get either a complex and unstable coalition or a weak minority govt supported by whichever minor parties are willing to ask for least"
With the minority parties including not only UKIP, LibDems and SNP but also:
Sinn fein; Plaid Cymru; Greens; DUP; Social Democratic and Labour Party' and the Alliance Party
Your exam question, draw a Venn diagram of the interaction of parties showing which ones would and would not ever get together in a coalition. (10 marks, with additional mark for showing which ones would subsequently result in bloodshed)
"vote UKIP, get either a complex and unstable coalition or a weak minority govt supported by whichever minor parties are willing to ask for least"
With the minority parties including not only UKIP, LibDems and SNP but also:
Sinn fein; Plaid Cymru; Greens; DUP; Social Democratic and Labour Party' and the Alliance Party
Your exam question, draw a Venn diagram of the interaction of parties showing which ones would and would not ever get together in a coalition. (10 marks, with additional mark for showing which ones would subsequently result in bloodshed)
Greg66 said:
BlackLabel said:
The latest from Ashcroft.
How is this the latest? There's one here: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20... which is dated today (24 Nov). Anyway, this is a question for FiF, who seems to knwo abit more than the average punter about polling and surveys.
The rubric used by Ashcroft is as follows:
"1,004 adults were interviewed by telephone between 21 and 23 November 2014. Results have been weighted to be representative of all adults in Great Britain. Half of the interviews were conducted by landline and half by mobile phone. Results are weighted by recalled past vote at the last general election and stated likelihood to turn out at the next. A proportion of those who don't know or refuse to say how they will vote are re-allocated to the party they voted for at the 2010 general election."
How does the weighting work? And that last sentence: 1004 were interviewed; an undisclosed proportion declined to answer, so we took a guess for them rather than mark them down as "don't know/refuse to answer".
At what point (and I really don't know - this is a genuine question) does polling cease to be polling in the literal sense and become guessing passed off as polling? The scope for manipulation of data, as opposed to reporting of data, seems massive, but is poll data really illegitimately manipulated?
There are a number of problems with recalled vote surveys even before you get to the question of the data handling.
People have extraordinarily bad memories and even lie. They forget who they voted for, they say they voted for the winner when in reality they voted fora loser, they say they voted when Iin reality they ddidn't and a whole host of other almost random things designed to balls things up.
Secondly, which comes to the point you raise, what do you do with people who don't know or refuse to answer.
For certain categories personally I prefer to exclude that data and say it's excluded. For others not exclude it but report it fwiw.
Ashcroft appears to fart about and adjust the results. Maybe he is right maybe he isn't, at least he declares what he's done. Which some don't, ref the earlier Express discussion.
For example during the Newark by election he came out with one poll where he said something like adjusted the figures to take account of respondents being unwilling to declare their intention to vote for the Conservatives.
Now my reaction at the time was what the juddering feck? All the indications then, and still the case afaik, is that UKIP voters are most likely to be reluctant to declare their voting intention to friends, never mind strangers.
Yet Ashcroft called Newark better than I did so Wtf do I know?
Weighted vs unweighted. This is on a phone so will have to be short. In unweighted data every individual response has the same importance. But your sampling may not reflect the national makeup. For example 30% of your respondents may come from a region where only 20% of the population live. Or you may speak to a lot of people who are not in work because that's who is at home, or age range or socio-economic class.
Weighting is an attempt to give different weighting to each of the respondents to reflect as closely as possible the national make up. Yes it's a fudge factor but there it is.
However you then get the problem as discussed on here that having got homogenised results which fit the national makeup, in reality people don't live like that.
So then having taken the national weighted data then imo the most accurate analyses take that and weight it back down at constituency level and try and figure that out.
Guessimetric? Well yes.
Not sure if that answers your question fully but a bit pushed for time at the moment tbh.
Steven Woolfe, UKIP MEP for NW England, in the Farage hot seat. Not as 'lubricated' as Nigel, but confidence grew during delivery.
Content.... Spot on.
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_1015_Steven-Woolf...
Content.... Spot on.
http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_1015_Steven-Woolf...
Does this guy think we are as stupid as he appears to be?
If you supplement his words into that something makes a semblance of sense:
'pay the same taxes which are paid for tax credits doing the same job' and get much more back, even though as incomers, they have no history of contribution
'MOSCOW, November 24 (Sputnik) – Plans by the British government to cut "in-work benefits", money paid to low wage workers to top up their salaries, for European migrants are discriminatory and will not curb the migration of Poles to the United Kingdom, Polish Ambassador to London Witold Sobkow said on Monday.
"These measures [cutting in-work benefits] would be discriminatory, because we pay the same taxes which are paid for tax credits doing the same job. Imagine you have three people working for the BBC: one from Spain, one from Poland, one from the UK. They live and they pay taxes here. Why should you discriminate against the Spanish and the Polish worker?"
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20141124/1015111490....
If you supplement his words into that something makes a semblance of sense:
'pay the same taxes which are paid for tax credits doing the same job' and get much more back, even though as incomers, they have no history of contribution
'MOSCOW, November 24 (Sputnik) – Plans by the British government to cut "in-work benefits", money paid to low wage workers to top up their salaries, for European migrants are discriminatory and will not curb the migration of Poles to the United Kingdom, Polish Ambassador to London Witold Sobkow said on Monday.
"These measures [cutting in-work benefits] would be discriminatory, because we pay the same taxes which are paid for tax credits doing the same job. Imagine you have three people working for the BBC: one from Spain, one from Poland, one from the UK. They live and they pay taxes here. Why should you discriminate against the Spanish and the Polish worker?"
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20141124/1015111490....
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
<stuff>
Not sure if that answers your question fully but a bit pushed for time at the moment tbh.
Yes, thanks. That is very instructive indeed. Not sure if that answers your question fully but a bit pushed for time at the moment tbh.
Just watched Dispatches 'How to break into Britain'
Hmm. No wonder Ukip is on a roll.
Watch it on demand
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-d...
Hmm. No wonder Ukip is on a roll.
Watch it on demand
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-d...
BGARK said:
Same with Panorama on BBC1, banks, lawyers, accountants and politicians, all in each others pockets, keeping high level "non-jobs" ticking along at the expense of the rest of us.
I've just watched that too, so started a thread on that one as the report author is Ginetta's boss.This country is f****d with a big F. No wonder voters are turning to Ukip. Our last hope?
Defection manoeuvres in Sherwood?
15th most marginal constituency in UK and in top 20 most UKIP friendly Conservative seats link
15th most marginal constituency in UK and in top 20 most UKIP friendly Conservative seats link
Interesting post from Mike Smithson.
He's split out the England figures from Ashcroft's latest poll
Essentially his point is that Labour's Scottish crisis could be masking something more significant, the collapse of the Tories in England.
Link to his post here including graphs for each party GE2010 this week, England only.
His summary point is "What strikes me is that the inclusion of Wales and mostly Scotland in the GB figures mean that the UKIP surge has been understated in the part of the UK where 95% of the LAB-CON marginals are."
He's split out the England figures from Ashcroft's latest poll
Essentially his point is that Labour's Scottish crisis could be masking something more significant, the collapse of the Tories in England.
Link to his post here including graphs for each party GE2010 this week, England only.
His summary point is "What strikes me is that the inclusion of Wales and mostly Scotland in the GB figures mean that the UKIP surge has been understated in the part of the UK where 95% of the LAB-CON marginals are."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff