UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
Scuffers said:
The problem with that is do you believe the poles?
They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
Is UKIP now blaming immigrants for opinion poll variability?They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
(This is a joke, based on the homonym, just in case any of you is feeling a little upset by the comment)
Scuffers said:
The problem with that is do you believe the poles?
They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
That is an extreme case, and I said earlier that I think the results do seem to stretch to the limit the claims of errors that different companies are making for each of their individual assumptions. So I think it likely that some at least have it wrong. Nevertheless it is possible they are all statistically valid. Whilst in the case the probability of such a pair of numbers may still being just random departures from the mean may seem vanishingly low, with such a lot of polls then such discrepancies are quite likely to occur, especially with the smaller parties for whom a small number of random differences are needed.They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
Which is one reason you should never look at individual polls.
Scuffers said:
Point is, with these kind of figures, the margin of error must be huge.
If you apply those kind of margins, they could easily be 1st or last...
Ie, they are meaningless.
No. As I have repeatedly said there is no single "error margin", just the further from the mean the probability is lowerIf you apply those kind of margins, they could easily be 1st or last...
Ie, they are meaningless.
I think I got the numbers wrong the other day, but I think the 3% error often quote is a 2 sigma case (not 3 as I said)
Assuming a normal distribution
95% of polls should be within 3% of the actual number
68% will be within 1.5%
99.7% will be within 4.5%
but a few odd balls will come in way out - like one or more obviously have.
That doesn't mean that polling as a whole is wrong, or that averages and trends cannot be discerned, just the eternal advice, don't use a sing;e poll
Fif you know this right?
JustAnotherLogin said:
Scuffers said:
Whilst that might have been true in the past, I really think they're way off this time round...
Other than blind optimism (which we all suffer from in different ways), what evidence do you have?Not optimistic either way, just astounded that you can place so much weight on apparently flakey polls?
Scuffers said:
Lol!
Not optimistic either way, just astounded that you can place so much weight on apparently flakey polls?
Who is putting so much weight?Not optimistic either way, just astounded that you can place so much weight on apparently flakey polls?
Whether it will be hung parliament? I do think the polls support that
Whether UKIP will win a number of seats that mean they will be a significant force (>20 say)? I think the polls say they won't
The point being that you can change the underlying assumptions quite a lot and those will still be true
Whereas
Whether Labour or Tories will be biggest? No conclusion should be drawn from polls
Whether UKIP will be 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th in numbers of seats. No conclusion should be drawn from polls
because those are well within the range of quite likely statistical errors
But it is also worth remembering that the polls are a snapshot, as we get closer they get more accurate, but with 3 manifestos still to be publish there is time for a change. Plus this election does introduce a few more variables as I have said, for example
Will ex-Tory Kippers return to the Tory fold to keep out Labour despite what they have said in polls so far? Quite possible
Will Kippers be more likely to vote than models predict because they have such string feelings? Quite possible
Will Kippers be less likely to vote because in the end they know it won't make a difference? Quite possible
Will ex-LD voters be drawn back out of loyalty/dislike for the other main parties? Quite possible
Nevertheless I would be very surprised if what I have said above is indicated by the polls does not come true
Scuffers said:
The problem with that is do you believe the poles?
They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
I'll go with geographical location of the sample set. UKIP support is not uniformly distributed across England. They constantly seem to be random numbers, two poles on the same day show UKIP at 7% and 18%
How does that work?
ETA: whilst I have no evidence to support this assertion, my feeling is that there are more polling companies around this election than previously. Whether that is right or not, it seems obvious that the polling companies are basically competing against one another. And the competition inevitably takes the form of "here's something that's deserving of a really big headline".
Whilst I don't doubt that the polling companies are reporting their results as accurately as they need to, I do suspect strongly that they are being careful about selecting their polling sample, because that (as they know) will determine the result.
Where the poll commissioners' agenda lies in this is harder to discern. Eg: does the Guardian think that running a story about a poll that shows a Tory lead will galvanise the Labour vote? Or does it think that a poll that shows a Labour lead will give momentum? I have no idea, and perhaps with the major parties so close nor do the poll commissioning parties.
All that said, it seems completely clear as FiF and JALI have both said repeatedly: individual polls count for very little. Averaging across polls and discerning trends over time is the best use of the polling information.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th April 03:02
allergictocheese said:
They're a fringe party used as a protest vote in scenarios the public see as less important, such as EU and local elections. When it comes down to who's running the country, they fade back into relative obscurity.
keep telling yourself that...then consider just how many UKIP policies are now in both the Tory and Labour manifesto's.
(or plain enacted like the NHS passport one in this weeks papers).
for a 'fringe party' as you put it, they have already achieved more real change than any other in the last 24 months, all with only 2 MP's in the last 9 months.
JustAnotherLogin said:
I don't understand why you have such a problem with the polling.
Say I conduct a poll with 1000 people (please don't be offended with me omitting the smaller parties at the last election, it is just to make it simpler)
As one of the base questions they are asked how they voted last time
If 35% say they didn't vote
23.5% say they voted tory
18.9% say they voted labour
15% say they voted libdem
Then all is fine and dandy. That mirrors the vote at the last election
But it is more likely that having picked 1000 (or however many) at random, or as random as I can, that there will be a difference
Say
If 35% say they didn't vote
35% say they voted tory
20% say they voted labour
10% say they voted libdem
Then if I just take what they say as their intended vote this time, then the Tories are likely to come out looking better. Say 35% said they would vote Tory next time, it is likely this means the Tory vote has not changed, so across the country as a whole their vote will be 23.5%. Or more generally is will be 0.235/0.35T is the proportion that say they will vote tory this time (excluding other adjustments)
Similarly pollsters have found that no matter whether people say they will not vote, if they voted last time, there is a good chance they will do so again. So they have to try and "squeeze" the vote, but only if they admit a possibility, and then the figure is adjusted down, because they are still less likely to vote than someone who did last time AND says they definitely will this time. So all sorts of factors are used there.
So there is a good reason for all the adjustments. That does not mean that they are all correct though
That this +/- 3% rule: that should not be taken as an absolute. That is a gross simplification.
By statistical analysis it means that there is a 95% chance that the prediction is within 3% of the actual figure on that day. By the maths of a normal distribution, that means 80% chance within +/-2% and 50% chance within +/-1%
Now even a quick look at the range of polls shows that the actual distribution across various polling organisations is way outside that. So evidently some or all of the pollsters "adjustments" are incorrect, or the sampling is flawed.
Now some pollsters have a better record than others if you look historically, but there is also the possibility that the assumptions have changed.
For example are disenchanted voters more likely to vote for a protest party such as UKIP irrespective of whether they voted last time?
Are people who say they voted Tory last time and will vote UKIP this time actually likely to "return to the fold" as the election looms closer and they fear a lab/snp govt?
I could make a logical argument for both those changes in the rules. Have the polling companies fed that it? By enough? Too much? Have they used data from the Euro elections to underwrite the new assumptions? Could they be very misleading?
So in short, the adjustments are essential to get anything close to an accurate answer. But how accurate are they? Ask me in 4 weeks
you may be correct. on the other hand the bbc were out and about yesterday seeking voter opinion. they had several people on camera that were deliberating between labour and tory in one of the marginals. they mentioned that several people had said they were voting ukip, but funnily enough none of these people appeared on camera. this suggests to me there are a large number of people that intend to vote ukip but will not be willing to state this unless completely anonymous to the questioner.what the effect of this will be come the election is pure guesswork on the part of the pollsters .Say I conduct a poll with 1000 people (please don't be offended with me omitting the smaller parties at the last election, it is just to make it simpler)
As one of the base questions they are asked how they voted last time
If 35% say they didn't vote
23.5% say they voted tory
18.9% say they voted labour
15% say they voted libdem
Then all is fine and dandy. That mirrors the vote at the last election
But it is more likely that having picked 1000 (or however many) at random, or as random as I can, that there will be a difference
Say
If 35% say they didn't vote
35% say they voted tory
20% say they voted labour
10% say they voted libdem
Then if I just take what they say as their intended vote this time, then the Tories are likely to come out looking better. Say 35% said they would vote Tory next time, it is likely this means the Tory vote has not changed, so across the country as a whole their vote will be 23.5%. Or more generally is will be 0.235/0.35T is the proportion that say they will vote tory this time (excluding other adjustments)
Similarly pollsters have found that no matter whether people say they will not vote, if they voted last time, there is a good chance they will do so again. So they have to try and "squeeze" the vote, but only if they admit a possibility, and then the figure is adjusted down, because they are still less likely to vote than someone who did last time AND says they definitely will this time. So all sorts of factors are used there.
So there is a good reason for all the adjustments. That does not mean that they are all correct though
That this +/- 3% rule: that should not be taken as an absolute. That is a gross simplification.
By statistical analysis it means that there is a 95% chance that the prediction is within 3% of the actual figure on that day. By the maths of a normal distribution, that means 80% chance within +/-2% and 50% chance within +/-1%
Now even a quick look at the range of polls shows that the actual distribution across various polling organisations is way outside that. So evidently some or all of the pollsters "adjustments" are incorrect, or the sampling is flawed.
Now some pollsters have a better record than others if you look historically, but there is also the possibility that the assumptions have changed.
For example are disenchanted voters more likely to vote for a protest party such as UKIP irrespective of whether they voted last time?
Are people who say they voted Tory last time and will vote UKIP this time actually likely to "return to the fold" as the election looms closer and they fear a lab/snp govt?
I could make a logical argument for both those changes in the rules. Have the polling companies fed that it? By enough? Too much? Have they used data from the Euro elections to underwrite the new assumptions? Could they be very misleading?
So in short, the adjustments are essential to get anything close to an accurate answer. But how accurate are they? Ask me in 4 weeks
labour were polling ahead of ukip in the lead up to the european elections ,how did that work out in the end ?
allergictocheese said:
If UKIP get more than 5 seats I'll eat my hat. They're a fringe party used as a protest vote in scenarios the public see as less important, such as EU and local elections. When it comes down to who's running the country, they fade back into relative obscurity.
That's how you see it and you are wrong. The EU is an increasingly worrying concern for many who like me, gave it little thought until certain folks highlighted the "advantages" of being a successful member nation within that Union.Needs addressing and rectifying sharpish! Cannot be done under the existing set up apparently. So the only way to do that is look for the EXIT. Otherwise they will continue to treat the UK as the mugs we are and milk it incessantly. Renegotiate ... fat chance. Meantime, cough up £1.7bn UK. More next time.
For far too long mug UK has been playing fairly in a predatory shark infested European Union and wider commercial world. Needs sorting without further harmful delay.
More than five seats you now say...
Oh yes, best to avoid any cheese hats should you need to consume one at some stage.Meantime throw ever wider the doors. We are assured we need more immigrants. What's a paltry 300,000 pa within hugely under populated UK. Serial gravid breeders most welcome. That's what our INTERnational Health Service is there for.
Youz cudnee mak eet oop.
Edited by MGJohn on Tuesday 14th April 10:36
Scuffers said:
allergictocheese said:
They're a fringe party used as a protest vote in scenarios the public see as less important, such as EU and local elections. When it comes down to who's running the country, they fade back into relative obscurity.
keep telling yourself that...then consider just how many UKIP policies are now in both the Tory and Labour manifesto's.
(or plain enacted like the NHS passport one in this weeks papers).
for a 'fringe party' as you put it, they have already achieved more real change than any other in the last 24 months, all with only 2 MP's in the last 9 months.
However this does not mean in the long term that UKIP are doomed as allergictocheese would like to think, just that older parties with established voting bases will tend to tick up in support as voting day approaches. If voting UKIP in a GE gains the perception of being as perfectly a normal thing to do as voting Lab/Con, expect the decision to switch allegiances to become easier for more and more people.
This has been my point for some time. UKIP has to overcome the GE barrier of being seen as a one topic fringe party, useful as a protest at EU election time but not much more.
What's important this time around is not the absolute number of seats they win outright, or by throwing everything at South Thanet, hopefully within spending limits, they manage to beat Farage and "cut the head off the snake." The key will be how many good and clear second places they get, therefore clearly a credible contender.
What's then important is how UKIP handle transition from Farage to a successor, be that straight after May if he doesn't win South Thanet, or in 2018. Equally and more important is how they get their ideas and policies developed away from the handful they have now. Clearly they have policies in addition to the main two, EU and immigration, but they have not been successful in getting general awareness of these policies, more correctly they've not been allowed to achieve that because of the one track nature of the anti-kippers.
So my view is open to various possibilities, but if the next five years gives rise to an unpopular and/or ineffective argumentative administration, especially if no success or attempt to sort out Brussels, then look out 2020.
On another subject there's been a fair bit of comment on polls in the last few pages. I can't say anymore than already covered over the last few years. But in summary it's currently a pass from me due to the uncertainty of the inherent guessimetrics this time round.
What's important this time around is not the absolute number of seats they win outright, or by throwing everything at South Thanet, hopefully within spending limits, they manage to beat Farage and "cut the head off the snake." The key will be how many good and clear second places they get, therefore clearly a credible contender.
What's then important is how UKIP handle transition from Farage to a successor, be that straight after May if he doesn't win South Thanet, or in 2018. Equally and more important is how they get their ideas and policies developed away from the handful they have now. Clearly they have policies in addition to the main two, EU and immigration, but they have not been successful in getting general awareness of these policies, more correctly they've not been allowed to achieve that because of the one track nature of the anti-kippers.
So my view is open to various possibilities, but if the next five years gives rise to an unpopular and/or ineffective argumentative administration, especially if no success or attempt to sort out Brussels, then look out 2020.
On another subject there's been a fair bit of comment on polls in the last few pages. I can't say anymore than already covered over the last few years. But in summary it's currently a pass from me due to the uncertainty of the inherent guessimetrics this time round.
Planet Blatark-9 said:
Fair enough I suppose, although there were a few leading questions and a nicely selected, disgruntled ex-kipper to give a "Moseley" soundbite.Polls eh?
You all know which constituency I'm in (he's in Swindon today, they might not want to show some of the filming!)
Anyway, last night we ran a poll in the local. 23 clients, 8 bar and restaurant staff.
'Who you voting for in the GE?'
Results. Means nothing really, but key, as always, will be the don't knows. Kipper vote is what I expected, they are not backing out here.
CMD should walk it, but dependent on the don't knows he might get a well-reduced majority.
Campaigners should be targeting at the don't knows.
Con 14
Lab 4
Lib 0
Green 0
UKIP 8
Don't Know 4
Didn't vote 1
You all know which constituency I'm in (he's in Swindon today, they might not want to show some of the filming!)
Anyway, last night we ran a poll in the local. 23 clients, 8 bar and restaurant staff.
'Who you voting for in the GE?'
Results. Means nothing really, but key, as always, will be the don't knows. Kipper vote is what I expected, they are not backing out here.
CMD should walk it, but dependent on the don't knows he might get a well-reduced majority.
Campaigners should be targeting at the don't knows.
Con 14
Lab 4
Lib 0
Green 0
UKIP 8
Don't Know 4
Didn't vote 1
don4l said:
tangerine_sedge said:
rohrl said:
I've posted this in Pedal Powered already but I suppose I should post it here too.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...
UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -
Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.
Basically, old car owners are more worthy than young cycle users? Really? That's the level of the UKIP argument. It's so transparently aimed at getting the grey vote, it's just pathetic.http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...
UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -
Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.
He didn't say that old car owners are more worthy than young cycle users, did he?
You just made that up, and then you argued against yourself.
Not only that, but you also think that the entire Internet are too dumb to see what you tried to do.
The truth is that the entire Internet can see that you don't have a point... because you had to make stuff up.
I do love the adversarial nature of this thread, but I would ask that the lefties please stop making up stuff. It is beginning to get a bit tedious. Furthermore, it only serves to make you look incredibly stupid.
UKIP bumpf said:
"Cyclists are the chosen people, motorists are simpy a cash cow and have very few rights."
Cyclists bad, car owners good! Why are the cyclists the chosen few, is it because they get a handful of cycle lanes provided?UKIP bumpf said:
"How many elderly ladies will get on their bikes on a dark December night in Newcastle? Not many. Surely giving all the right to cyclists, who are usually young people, is discrimination against the elderly and infirm?"
Poor old dears versus 'right grabbing' young cyclists. What are all these 'rights' that the cyclists are taking from the elderly?UKIP bumpf said:
"Try walking across Town Moor when a cyclist is silently whizzing along at 20mph, one move to the left or right could cause serious injuries to a pedestrian. Cyclists carry no number plates or insurance."
Perhaps if cyclists had cycle lanes then this wouldn't be a problem? Or is it a problem with people walking into the road without looking? Anyway, it's the cyclists fault as they have no insurance or number plates, nothing to do with people not looking where they are walking when crossing the street.It's clear to all but the stupid and Kippers (whoops a tautology there!) that they have written this piece (badly) to try and gain the grey vote by blaming a group of people (in this case cyclists) who are unlikely to vote UKIP anyway.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff