UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[brenflys777]

Only one poll, the improvement of UKIPs 3% increase may be within margin of error etc, etc...

The polls rely on all sorts of things including being unable to cover people who vote but CBA to talk to a stranger about it!

JAL can look at these polls and observe short term trends (like the latest highest ever ukip in populus above) but looking at the last few years, the number of votes cast for ukip in by elections, number of members, number of MPs, number of MEPs, Facebook/Twitter likes and reposts, media coverage all suggest a growing party.

[JustAnotherLogin]

No need

firstly that's not how percentages in polls work
secondly I highlighted polls from one source and one methodology so sample sizes were all close to 2000
thirdly it was turbobloke saying that UKIP support was rising because of all the critcism, I am merely pointing out that seems unlikely

wc98
Even if I take the current mean to be 14% (which for all the reasons stated is a figure on which there is little confidence) then I have a 50-50 change of winning the bet. I always look for much better odds than that thanks

In any case, I have made it clear that there is nothing to show that trend will continue, I merely too issue with the (of asserted) view that criticism of UKIP has and will mean support will grow. The facts do not support that

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Gosh you really do want to stick your head in the sand and deny the evidence...

I'm not denying the evidence, I'm pointing out that your conclusions drawn from the evidence have no validity.

If any of the numbers at those links change by more than 3% within the same poll over time then you may take some crumb of a conclusion that the actual support level behind that limited sample size snapshot actually tallies with it. If the numbers in a poll against UKIP change by only 3 percentage points e.g. 17% to 14% then that result is consistent with the conclusion that there has been no change in the actual support for UKIP.

If the change was 17% to 10% then there is a bigger crumb available over a possible trend, because the first poll result of 17% is very likely to represent actual support levels of no less than 14% and the second no greater than 13%. So, a change of 7 points for a possible claim to a one point trend, do you have that in any of those polls you listed? Has it clicked yet?

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

polls from one source and one methodology so sample sizes were all close to 2000

A sample size of 2000 applies to one poll with a sample size of 2000.

[JustAnotherLogin]

turbobloke said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Gosh you really do want to stick your head in the sand and deny the evidence...

I'm not denying the evidence, I'm pointing out that your conclusions drawn from the evidence have no validity.

If any of the numbers at those links change by more than 3% within the same poll over time then you may take some crumb of a conclusion that the actual support level behind that limited sample size snapshot actually tallies with it. If the numbers in a poll against UKIP change by only 3 percentage points e.g. 17% to 14% then that result is consistent with the conclusion that there has been no change in the actual support for UKIP.

If the change was 17% to 10% then there is a bigger crumb available over a possible trend, because the first poll result of 17% is very likely to represent actual support levels of no less than 14% and the second no greater than 13%. So, a change of 7 points for a possible one point trend, do you have that in any of those polls you listed? Has it clicked yet?

You do realise that the error quoted on a poll is not some absolute number, but a 2 (or possibly 3) sigma variation of a normal deviation, so any particular result it is not either possible or not possible, but just more or less likely. And that a trend across 3 polls is largely meaningless but across 70+ is more meaningful, irrespective of whether it exceed the error quote?

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises. All I am doing is showing that is complete, and utter tosh, without a shred of evidence. Because they have been heavily criticised the last 6 months and there is not a shred of evidence that support for UKIP has risen

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

turbobloke said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Gosh you really do want to stick your head in the sand and deny the evidence...

I'm not denying the evidence, I'm pointing out that your conclusions drawn from the evidence have no validity.

If any of the numbers at those links change by more than 3% within the same poll over time then you may take some crumb of a conclusion that the actual support level behind that limited sample size snapshot actually tallies with it. If the numbers in a poll against UKIP change by only 3 percentage points e.g. 17% to 14% then that result is consistent with the conclusion that there has been no change in the actual support for UKIP.

If the change was 17% to 10% then there is a bigger crumb available over a possible trend, because the first poll result of 17% is very likely to represent actual support levels of no less than 14% and the second no greater than 13%. So, a change of 7 points for a possible one point trend, do you have that in any of those polls you listed? Has it clicked yet?

You do realise that the error quoted on a poll is not some absolute number, but a 2 (or possibly 3) sigma variation of a normal deviation, so any particular result it is not either possible or not possible, but just more or less likely. And that a trend across 3 polls is largely meaningless but across 70+ is more meaningful, irrespective of whether it exceed the error quote?

You really should acknowledge the source, cut and paste would have been better.

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises. All I am doing is showing that is complete, and utter tosh, without a shred of evidence. Because they have been heavily criticised the last 6 months and there is not a shred of evidence that support for UKIP has risen

You still haven't shown that actual UKIP support has fallen.

You've shown that the number alongside UKIP in some polls has fallen.

It may have fallen but you don't know and can't say.

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

That's a false accusation, below the bar old fruit. I said no such thing.

This is what I said:

And when they do, in the gratuitously fatuous way of old, what odds it will increase support for UKIP?

I asked a question about probability.

There was no assertion, and no 'whenever'.

Your reading and/or comprehension is as sloppy as your stats.

My question, not assertion, was based around what happened when The Daily Mirror ran a poll asking if the 'First 100 Days' programme lampooning UKIP would make people more or less likely to vote for UKIP. 71% said that it would make them more likely to vote UKIP. On that basis, asking the above question was entirely reasonable.

What you posted afterwards is for you to live with.

[egor110]

JustAnotherLogin said:

No need

firstly that's not how percentages in polls work
secondly I highlighted polls from one source and one methodology so sample sizes were all close to 2000
thirdly it was turbobloke saying that UKIP support was rising because of all the critcism, I am merely pointing out that seems unlikely

wc98
Even if I take the current mean to be 14% (which for all the reasons stated is a figure on which there is little confidence) then I have a 50-50 change of winning the bet. I always look for much better odds than that thanks

In any case, I have made it clear that there is nothing to show that trend will continue, I merely too issue with the (of asserted) view that criticism of UKIP has and will mean support will grow. The facts do not support that

Surely if you only bet if the chance of winning is more than 50% the odds would be terrible?

[dandarez]

steveT350C said:

More than 1,100 students have taken part in a mock election at Thomas Gainsborough School in Sudbury this afternoon.

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2015-03-11/s...

Blimey!
Why has this not had more airplay?

First reference I've seen to it. Well, I realise why it's not publicised, because this would be a bit of a shock to the established view of the younger generation and voting. It even made my jaw drop. I really would not have expected a result like this, in fact, I would not have been surprised to see UKIP come last. Apart from ITV and a local rag, it seems to have had no publicity. If they'd voted Greens top it would have been splashed on every lefty rag available. So it's a best keep quiet and raise Farage's 4 month old bit about the workplace.

All I can say is roll on May 7th. That shock I've long predicted, might be bigger than any of us can imagine!

[longblackcoat]

dandarez said:

Blimey!
Why has this not had more airplay?

In all honesty, because it's simply not news. Think about it - a non-representative sample of non-voters selected a candiate in a constituency where the Conservative candidate will, in reality, win at a canter with a minimum 10,000 majority, having had a 20k majority last time round.

Like I say, just not really news.

[turbobloke]

longblackcoat said:

dandarez said:

Blimey!
Why has this not had more airplay?

In all honesty, because it's simply not news.

When, in reality, it is.

It hasn't got its tits out, was that what you meant?

[longblackcoat]

turbobloke said:

longblackcoat said:

dandarez said:

Blimey!
Why has this not had more airplay?

In all honesty, because it's simply not news.

When, in reality, it is.

It hasn't got its tits out, was that what you meant?

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. I said it wasn't news. I even explained why.

Perhaps rather than questioning what I mean, you tell me why it is news. Probably add to the debate more, don't you think?

[turbobloke]

longblackcoat said:

turbobloke said:

longblackcoat said:

dandarez said:

Blimey!
Why has this not had more airplay?

In all honesty, because it's simply not news.

When, in reality, it is.

It hasn't got its tits out, was that what you meant?

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. I said it wasn't news. I even explained why.

Then you have a problem with posting crap explanations.

longblackcoat said:

Perhaps rather than questioning what I mean, you tell me why it is news. Probably add to the debate more, don't you think?

Already done, see previous posts in the thread.

Asking for repeat explanations across threads suggests you need to be moved to a slower PH set with extra help at lunchtime. Self-evidently, again.

[Mojocvh]

Perhaps despite years of constructing a brainwashing apperatti in the form of the education system young people can see through it all?

Just as salmond/sturgeon [now there's a coincidence] found out in the referendum....

[anonymous-user]

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

I'm not sure that Scuffers is right there but it seems to make their existing support stronger. Then again I think Farage could be photo'd in a KKK outfit and many would just say it's a media smear and he's blatently dressed up as a ghost (not saying Farage is racist btw, just making a point).

I generally find that the majority of UKIPpers on here have already made their minds up and aren't going to be swayed by any argument.

However I don't buy the whole 'media campaign against UKIP'. Papers are interested in selling papers and getting website views and UKIP provide stories and clickbait so the media goes after them. If there were readers to be gained by a pro-UKIP story I'd bet they'd run it in an instant.

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

I'm not sure that Scuffers is right there but it seems to make their existing support stronger.

Scuffers? Could be mistken identity there, but I wasn't there at the time anyway I was over there --------> showing empathy for the lefties getting increasingly concerned at the level of support for UKIP as left-liberal serial failure hits home with voters. No empathy for CMD's plight, he needs a wake-up call as much as Miliband and his supporters need a clue.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

I'm not sure that Scuffers is right there but it seems to make their existing support stronger.

Scuffers? Could be mistken identity there, but I wasn't there at the time anyway I was over there --------> showing empathy the lefties getting increasingly concerned at the level of support UKIP as left-liberal serial failure hits home with voters. No empathy for CMD's plight, he needs a wake-up call as much as Miliband and his supporters need a clue.

Ooops, sorry !!

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

I'm not sure that Scuffers is right there but it seems to make their existing support stronger.

Scuffers? Could be mistken identity there, but I wasn't there at the time anyway I was over there --------> showing empathy the lefties getting increasingly concerned at the level of support UKIP as left-liberal serial failure hits home with voters. No empathy for CMD's plight, he needs a wake-up call as much as Miliband and his supporters need a clue.

Ooops, sorry !!

No, no, it was him officer, I was somewhere else

[Scuffers]

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

And lastly, and most importantly, this started because you asserted that whenever UKIP get criticised, support for them rises.

I'm not sure that Scuffers is right there but it seems to make their existing support stronger.

Scuffers? Could be mistken identity there, but I wasn't there at the time anyway I was over there --------> showing empathy the lefties getting increasingly concerned at the level of support UKIP as left-liberal serial failure hits home with voters. No empathy for CMD's plight, he needs a wake-up call as much as Miliband and his supporters need a clue.

Ooops, sorry !!

No, no, it was him officer, I was somewhere else

what have I done now?

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

If the change was 17% to 10% then there is a bigger crumb available over a possible trend, because the first poll result of 17% is very likely to represent actual support levels of no less than 14% and the second no greater than 13%. So, a change of 7 points for a possible claim to a one point trend, do you have that in any of those polls you listed? Has it clicked yet?

going by the above reply i believe it has indeed clicked