|
|
Post by shevii on Mar 21, 2023 17:25:23 GMT
graham Ok so do we agree that on everything other than economic position the current liberal democrat position is to the left of Starmer's labour? I don't incidentally accept for one moment your interpretation of an absence of Keynesian growth, the liberal democrats are committed to rolling back the damaging restrictions caused by Brexit and massive investment in green energy and industry. Reversing brexit alone would add 5% to GDP far greater boost to our economy and investment than any of the welcome but relatively small proposals from Labour. Are they to the right of Starmer/Reeves on economic position? Not sure that either have really firmed up GE policies yet anyway. The minute they do their penny on Income Tax for the NHS (assuming they do something similar) they will notionally be to the left of Labour on finances. The LD current problem is more that they don't have any clear distinction to other parties any more- the big headline reason for them being to the left of New Labour was probably Iraq war and probably moved votes. Then there was remain and now nothing obvious to your average voter (or even your politically interested voter). It's not even obvious that LD are more likely to attract Tory votes now than Labour is, although perhaps there are some oldies left who would never vote Labour. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Mar 21, 2023 17:29:13 GMT
Boris hoping to get off with nothing more than needing to make a full apology* will likely occupy the news tomorrow and press headlines of Thursday. However, there also the WF vote and so far 9 'Noes' (8 DUP + Duddridge for CON) and 4 'maybes' (Boris, Dorries, Francois and Redwood). Could well be a few more 'Noes' come of the woodwork and/or quite a few abstentions but the vote is going to pass with a massive majority and since DUP are 'on strike' then Westminster is sovereign when it comes to NI.
Full list: which MPs will vote against Sunak’s Brexit deal?
www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-which-mps-will-vote-against-sunaks-brexit-deal/* I'm not sure what people are expecting but "“If a suspension of 10 sitting days, 14 calendar days, or more is agreed then it would engage the Recall of MPs Act 2015.” which could trigger a by-election that LAB would probably win (although Count BinFace might fancy his chances?). Timings and more details in the link below but with the various lead times then Boris is unlikely to be gone before Summer. ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-privileges-committee/ |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Mar 21, 2023 17:33:56 GMT
barbara Primarily the Met has national responsibilities because local constabularies don't have the resources or man power. It's unrealistic for example for a constabluary to have a dedicated anti terrorism or diplomatic protection unit when its total establishment is only around 1500 officers It's entirely possible to separate these roles from the Met but a little pointless to replace existing infrastructure and resources. Would frankly be little more than a renaming exercise. The MET uses the practice of Officer Shuffling internally, to transfer 'problematic' Officers around between it's fiefdoms rather than expelling them. They have complete control over a vast allocation of budget, that is mainly kept secretive and beyond public oversight. This has resulted in the Met focusing it's money on the various 'overtime commands' such as the Film Unit that puts a dozen officers to watch someone shot a TV commercial, while forgetting to repair and replace biological evidence freezers resulting in the loss of vital evidence from rape cases. Any individual MET officer can claim jurisdiction over basically anything in England or Wales by flashing their warrant card, including impeding or outright squashing investigations by other forces. Breaking the MET up is the first step to restoring public oversight of this rogue agency. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Mar 21, 2023 17:37:45 GMT
Johnson's defence seems to be weak and unraveling. Will be interesting to see whether Conservative MPs rally round and take a political stance on this, or whether they do their job honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 17:49:21 GMT
Only two things are important. 1. There can only ever be a Labour or a Tory prime minister; 2. A Labour prime minister is always, ALWAYS, preferable. Are you really telling us that you believe Jeremy Corbyn would have made the right decision when Russia invaded Ukraine? I don't have much time for Boris, but that is one decision he got right. I don't even believe that Corbyn would go to the aid of a NATO country attacked by Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Mar 21, 2023 18:00:28 GMT
Very surprised Johnson revealed his hand before the committee. All those clever words sound good in a speech but with advanced warning they can be shown up for the casuistry and deflection at their core.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,009
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 18:00:57 GMT
Had the Remain side accepted the result, there could have been a better outcome - Norway+. My recollection of events is that - "Norway+" was not on offer in the first place, it would not be possible to get a better deal than Norway has but also without Freedom of Movement.
- The ERG rejected "Norway+" because it would have meant European Court jurisdiction.
But I suppose it is easier to blame 'The Remainers' for not delivering a better Brexit than the one we got. I know a lot of "Remainer" MPs bitterly regret not supporting the Theresa May deal, which they had every chance to do. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55355628That their non cooperation handed the control to the ERG is unfortunate. In any case, point those fingers somewhere else but me, I'm not a MP, nor a Tory / Yellow Tory. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 18:12:33 GMT
The position in 1974 was different in that Heath had tried - and failed - to form a Coalition with Thorpe's Liberals. There was no prospect of the SNP and Plaid Cymru supporting the Tories.. However, if over the Summer of 1974 the Tories and Liberals had somehow come to an arrangement -plus the the support of assorted Unionist MPs -, it might well have been the case that Wilson would have been denied the Autumn Dissolution. Going further back to 1924 , when Ramsay Macdonald's first Labour Government fell that Autumn, Macdonald asked for a Dissolution. George V only granted his request after being advised by both Baldwin and Asquith that neither was in a position to form a Government. Any Government formed by Milliband in the 2010 Parliament would have been precarious - but the numbers were there to enable it - at least in the short term. He could reasonably have expected to have been given the opportunity to test support for his Government in the House of Commons.
Only two things are important. 1. There can only ever be a Labour or a Tory prime minister; 2. A Labour prime minister is always, ALWAYS, preferable. Simples All that is required to govern is the numbers and nerves of steel. In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories), and he certainly had nerves of steel, holding out until the last possible moment. LD wouldn’t even speak to him though. How different things might have been. "In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories)," - true but it is equally true that there were a lot more non-Labour than Labour MPs, so he didn't really have the numbers. It is a mistake to assume that all non-Tory parties are automatically natural allies. Labour and the SNP have always been bitter rivals for the some of the same seats and the Orange Book Lib Dems looked pretty comfortable in coalition. The bottom line is that the Conservatives had 48 more seats than Labour and cobbling together a Labour led government in that context was close to mission impossible. That is not the same as saying the Con/LD austerity coalition was a sensible or good outcome, which it certainly wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Mar 21, 2023 18:13:31 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 46% (-2)
CON: 31% (-1)
LDM: 8% (=)
SNP: 4% (+1)
RFM: 4% (+1)
GRN: 2% (=)
Via
@survation
, 17-20 Mar.
Changes w/ 13-15 Mar.
15 point lead with Survation - slightly down on their previous polls since the start of Feb (16, 19, 16, 16)
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Mar 21, 2023 18:26:53 GMT
barbara Primarily the Met has national responsibilities because local constabularies don't have the resources or man power. It's unrealistic for example for a constabluary to have a dedicated anti terrorism or diplomatic protection unit when its total establishment is only around 1500 officers It's entirely possible to separate these roles from the Met but a little pointless to replace existing infrastructure and resources. Would frankly be little more than a renaming exercise. Well it would be pointless if it was just a renaming exercise. Therefore an entirely new service has to be created named something like "national security and protection force". It doesn't even need the 'police' in it. It could be staffed by specialist officers some of who would be ex cops but not necessarily. It would have clearly defined responsibilities and sit under the Home Office. It would operate across the country and liaise with local forces as appropriate. That's just off the top of my head but there is just no need to it to be a part of the police at all, less a part of one police force. we have to change our thinking or we will never change our practices. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2023 18:33:47 GMT
It's obvious Rowley needs to go.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 18:36:18 GMT
barbaraCurrently the only people with the exception of the special forces authorised routinely to be armed in the UK are police officers. Clearly both diplomatic protection and anti terrorism units require armed officers. Despite fictional entertainment the security services MI5 are not authorised to carry firearms regularly in the U.K. Close security officers are police officers , similarly regular army aren't routinely armed the servicemen who act as palace guards are not carrying loaded firearms. If you entered royal palaces it's the police officers that are armed. Consequently you either use serving police officers , establish a separate specialist police service or change the law. I'm not sure how doing that improves London policing.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Mar 21, 2023 18:37:36 GMT
Anent UKPR (as oldnat might say), I have to say that I despair at the standard of statistical numeracy shown by its new owner Callum Jones. Apart from not knowing the difference between perceptively and perceptibly he also presents a graph showing a shrinking Labour lead (which you can see at pollingreport.uk/articles/has-labours-poll-lead-shrunk ) Now what is wrong with this? Simply that he is comparing apples with oranges and pears. We know that all pollsters have 'house effects': People polling have an average lead for Labour of 25% since the beginning of 2023; Omnisis, Redfield&Wilton and YouGov cluster round 22.5%, Techne is at 20%, and Deltapoll, Opinium and SavantaComRes are all between 15.8 and 16.8%. So the gradient of any apparent slope will be affected by when polls by particular pollsters are taken. As an example of this take the four polls by Opinium since the beginning of February, these had fieldwork ending on 17/2, 3/3, 10/3 and 17/3 so mainly towards the end of the period shown. As Opinium's Labour lead is lowest of all at 15.8%, this alone will bias the regression line downwards. A more accurate approach would be to calculate a regression line for each pollster separately and then combine them, weighting them by the number of sample points. Come back AW, your web site needs you! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Mar 21, 2023 19:44:31 GMT
Anent UKPR (as oldnat might say), I have to say that I despair at the standard of statistical numeracy shown by its new owner Callum Jones. Apart from not knowing the difference between perceptively and perceptibly he also presents a graph showing a shrinking Labour lead (which you can see at pollingreport.uk/articles/has-labours-poll-lead-shrunk ) Now what is wrong with this? Simply that he is comparing apples with oranges and pears. We know that all pollsters have 'house effects': People polling have an average lead for Labour of 25% since the beginning of 2023; Omnisis, Redfield&Wilton and YouGov cluster round 22.5%, Techne is at 20%, and Deltapoll, Opinium and SavantaComRes are all between 15.8 and 16.8%. So the gradient of any apparent slope will be affected by when polls by particular pollsters are taken. As an example of this take the four polls by Opinium since the beginning of February, these had fieldwork ending on 17/2, 3/3, 10/3 and 17/3 so mainly towards the end of the period shown. As Opinium's Labour lead is lowest of all at 15.8%, this alone will bias the regression line downwards. A more accurate approach would be to calculate a regression line for each pollster separately and then combine them, weighting them by the number of sample points. Come back AW, your web site needs you! More importantly Callum needs to patent his time machine given he wrote the article you've linked to on 10 Mar - unless he was just being very perceptive with his perception  |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Mar 21, 2023 19:50:43 GMT
My recollection of events is that - "Norway+" was not on offer in the first place, it would not be possible to get a better deal than Norway has but also without Freedom of Movement.
- The ERG rejected "Norway+" because it would have meant European Court jurisdiction.
But I suppose it is easier to blame 'The Remainers' for not delivering a better Brexit than the one we got. I know a lot of "Remainer" MPs bitterly regret not supporting the Theresa May deal, which they had every chance to do. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55355628That their non cooperation handed the control to the ERG is unfortunate. In any case, point those fingers somewhere else but me, I'm not a MP, nor a Tory / Yellow Tory. I've often wondered what your political affiliations are though, you're very opaque about it (which is your right of course). All I know is that you hate Libdems and freedom of movement and love brexit. Puts you firmly on the other side of the aisle to me.. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Mar 21, 2023 19:58:58 GMT
barbara Currently the only people with the exception of the special forces authorised routinely to be armed in the UK are police officers. Clearly both diplomatic protection and anti terrorism units require armed officers. Despite fictional entertainment the security services MI5 are not authorised to carry firearms regularly in the U.K. Close security officers are police officers , similarly regular army aren't routinely armed the servicemen who act as palace guards are not carrying loaded firearms. If you entered royal palaces it's the police officers that are armed. Consequently you either use serving police officers , establish a separate specialist police service or change the law. I'm not sure how doing that improves London policing. Well the report is clear that the current system is not good so it can't make it worse and has every chance to make it better. I think you're too close to all of this. Imagine this to be a different organisation - the NHS or schools. it's clear to most people not close to policing that the current Met is not working for the people it's supposed to serve or many of its employees either. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 20:04:18 GMT
barbara"the current Met is not working for the people it's supposed to serve or many of its employees either" Actually I entirely agree it's just that I don't see a solution via turning it into smaller forces. The problems the Met has aren't unique to the Met.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Mar 21, 2023 20:06:47 GMT
LeftieL
I have no idea what decision Corbyn might have made. Nor do I know what the “right” decision may yet turn out to have been.(I do know we live in dangerous times, where there are no simple solutions.)
And governance comes as a package; we can’t just pick and choose the bits we like. So, if you are asking me if I would prefer a Johnson-led government to a Corbyn one, the answer is a deafening “no”.. What do you say?
PJW. I agree with all you say; But I much prefer a messy precarious Labour-led government to a ‘stable’ Tory one. In 2010, LD could have run with Labour, but made the political decision to join the Tories. It wasn’t just numbers or some external force.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 20:07:04 GMT
Only two things are important. 1. There can only ever be a Labour or a Tory prime minister; 2. A Labour prime minister is always, ALWAYS, preferable. Simples All that is required to govern is the numbers and nerves of steel. In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories), and he certainly had nerves of steel, holding out until the last possible moment. LD wouldn’t even speak to him though. How different things might have been. "In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories)," - true but it is equally true that there were a lot more non-Labour than Labour MPs, so he didn't really have the numbers. It is a mistake to assume that all non-Tory parties are automatically natural allies. Labour and the SNP have always been bitter rivals for the some of the same seats and the Orange Book Lib Dems looked pretty comfortable in coalition. The bottom line is that the Conservatives had 48 more seats than Labour and cobbling together a Labour led government in that context was close to mission impossible. That is not the same as saying the Con/LD austerity coalition was a sensible or good outcome, which it certainly wasn't. Of course there would have been issues with other parties such as the SNP. At the end of the day,though, the SNP was likely to be more anti-Tory than anti- Labour and keen to keep the Tories out. On the same basis , the DUP - unlike the UUP - was not always a natural Tory ally, and re-economic policy might be closer to Labour. I am sure that many left of centre LibDem MPs bitterly regret going along with Clegg with the Coalition deal.I suspect that if 25% had denounced it in public, it would never have happened.I still cannot understand how supine the parliamentary party was at the time - and throughout the Parliament which followed. Pity that Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams & David Steel remained silent in public. Had they spoken out, doubtless quite a few MPs would have taken the hint.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Mar 21, 2023 21:02:45 GMT
Not sure if we have had the latest Red Wall polling from R&W so in case not:
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 21, 2023 21:15:02 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 46% (-2) CON: 31% (-1) LDM: 8% (=) SNP: 4% (+1) RFM: 4% (+1) GRN: 2% (=) Via @survation , 17-20 Mar. Changes w/ 13-15 Mar. 15 point lead with Survation - slightly down on their previous polls since the start of Feb (16, 19, 16, 16) In line with many others showing a slight fall in the Lab lead. Rishi has certainly steadied the ship. The good news for Labour is that the News cycles for the next few days are set to be filled with all things Boris and he is incredibly unpopular. |
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Mar 21, 2023 21:20:23 GMT
SNP leadership contest www.thenational.scot/news/23402290.lack-party-polls-means-uncertainty-outcome-snp-contest/I agree with much of the content of this article in THe National. And lament that there has only been one poll of party members, for reasons that I can only speculate on - no outfit willing to pay for a poll; membership data not easily usable; a general lack of interest in Scottish politics, doings, culture, history and sport, across the UK A snapshot of the knowledge of our top students came in last night`s Unversity Challenge - two fine teams in action having reached the quarter finals, and the question (for a team answer) was which Scottish city is the starting point for a walking route, called the Formartine Way, to Fraserburgh and Peterhead. After a struggle to think of Scottish cities, they came up with Glasgow. Well the country must have shrunk by half in their minds. Reasons for this knowledge hole I can only speculate on, and doing this has become harder - we simply don`t what TV that we see in Scotland gets transmitted elsewhere. Our Radio Times said that last night`s Grand Tour of Scotland was shown on BBC 1, but when I streamed this channel it wasn`t listed. So I had to stream BBC1 Scotland. But the BBC Scotland programme list in RT was different again. It`s a shambles, and the continuity links sometimes tell us that the programme coming next isn`t what we then see. However, as a pleasent end to this message, I can commend Paul Murton`s well crafted trip down the Dee and the footage passing Banchory. You will enjoy it, if you can find it. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 21, 2023 21:34:44 GMT
A plea to the skilled psephologists and statisticians on this site
Can you help me to comprehend how People Polling get to their headline figures (which they label "Only cases selecting a party") from their sample?
They weight their raw sample by "gender, age, socio-economic group, region, vote in the 2019 General Elections and 2016 Brexit referendum vote". Their total weighted sample is the same size as their unweighted one (though crossbreaks aren't). That's fine I understand that.
Then they (apparently) exclude the DKs, WNVs etc to produce their final VI numbers - BUT some dark force appears to intervene.
For GB, their "All Cases" breaks down as
Lab 35% : Con 16% : LD 7% : SNP 3% : REFUK 4% : Green 8% : Other 1% : DK etc 22%.
I was puzzled that this changed to the following when the DKs etc were excluded and it became -
Lab 45% : Con 20% : LD 9% : SNP 5% : REFUK 6% : Green 13% : Other 3%
which was different from the percentages calculated on the reduced number of cases, which would have been -
Lab 47% : Con 22% : LD 9% : SNP 4% : REFUK 5% : Green 11% : Other 1%
Presumably, this was where they were applying the self determined likelihood to vote - Con and Lab presumably less likely to vote, while SNP, REFUK and Green voters were more determined to exercise their democratic voice. With 17% 1-7 certain to vote, that seemed OK.
BUT
The Scots sample (while small at 110) has crazy numbers -
All cases - Lab 28% : Con 14% : LD 3% : SNP 29% : REFUK 0% : Green 4% : Other 0% : DK etc 22%
Headline - Lab 32% : Con 12% : LD 3% : SNP 46% : REFUK 0% : Green 6% : Other 0%
Calculated - Lab 36% : Con 18% : LD 4% : SNP 37% : REFUK 0% : Green 5% : Other 0%
With only 8% of the sample 1-7 CTV, it just isn't possible for LTV to produce such a massive change.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 21:48:31 GMT
"In 2010, Brown had the numbers (i.e. more not-tories than tories)," - true but it is equally true that there were a lot more non-Labour than Labour MPs, so he didn't really have the numbers. It is a mistake to assume that all non-Tory parties are automatically natural allies. Labour and the SNP have always been bitter rivals for the some of the same seats and the Orange Book Lib Dems looked pretty comfortable in coalition. The bottom line is that the Conservatives had 48 more seats than Labour and cobbling together a Labour led government in that context was close to mission impossible. That is not the same as saying the Con/LD austerity coalition was a sensible or good outcome, which it certainly wasn't. Of course there would have been issues with other parties such as the SNP. At the end of the day,though, the SNP was likely to be more anti-Tory than anti- Labour and keen to keep the Tories out. On the same basis , the DUP - unlike the UUP - was not always a natural Tory ally, and re-economic policy might be closer to Labour. I am sure that many left of centre LibDem MPs bitterly regret going along with Clegg with the Coalition deal.I suspect that if 25% had denounced it in public, it would never have happened.I still cannot understand how supine the parliamentary party was at the time - and throughout the Parliament which followed. Pity that Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams & David Steel remained silent in public. Had they spoken out, doubtless quite a few MPs would have taken the hint.
The passivity of the more social democratic end of the Lib Dems during the coalition was indeed shameful (putting party above country) but the whole party paid a price for it in 2015 so they were duly punished. As to the 2010 situation here are a couple of quotes from Labour MPs. "Many in Labour felt that a coalition with the Liberal Democrats was an unrealistic prospect since it would still fall short of the 326 seats needed to form a majority government, with 315 seats to the Conservatives' 306. Labour MP Graham Stringer said, "I don't think it makes sense in the arithmetic – the numbers don't add up." And re the SNP: "Labour's Douglas Alexander said he could not foresee a situation in which Labour could enter into government with the SNP because the two parties had "fundamental differences", and he made it clear that no senior Labour officials had been approached by anyone from the SNP." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_government_formationI find it fanciful to suppose that a Labour government would have been seen as legitimate after an election where it had just lost (notional due to boundary changes) 91 seats and the Conservatives gained 96. It is easy to imagine the viciousness of the Tory press campaign against it in that scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 21, 2023 21:57:00 GMT
Of course there would have been issues with other parties such as the SNP. At the end of the day,though, the SNP was likely to be more anti-Tory than anti- Labour and keen to keep the Tories out. On the same basis , the DUP - unlike the UUP - was not always a natural Tory ally, and re-economic policy might be closer to Labour. I am sure that many left of centre LibDem MPs bitterly regret going along with Clegg with the Coalition deal.I suspect that if 25% had denounced it in public, it would never have happened.I still cannot understand how supine the parliamentary party was at the time - and throughout the Parliament which followed. Pity that Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams & David Steel remained silent in public. Had they spoken out, doubtless quite a few MPs would have taken the hint.
The passivity of the more social democratic end of the Lib Dems during the coalition was indeed shameful (putting party above country) but the whole party paid a price for it in 2015 so they were duly punished. As to the 2010 situation here are a couple of quotes from Labour MPs. "Many in Labour felt that a coalition with the Liberal Democrats was an unrealistic prospect since it would still fall short of the 326 seats needed to form a majority government, with 315 seats to the Conservatives' 306. Labour MP Graham Stringer said, "I don't think it makes sense in the arithmetic – the numbers don't add up." And re the SNP: "Labour's Douglas Alexander said he could not foresee a situation in which Labour could enter into government with the SNP because the two parties had "fundamental differences", and he made it clear that no senior Labour officials had been approached by anyone from the SNP." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_government_formationI find it fanciful to suppose that a Labour government would have been seen as legitimate after an election where it had just lost (notional due to boundary changes) 91 seats and the Conservatives gained 96. It is easy to imagine the viciousness of the Tory press campaign against it in that scenario. It would certainly have been tricky- indeed perhaps stormy - but it probably would have led to another election in 2011 - unless Cameron could reach an agreement with other parties. Without the LDs that would have been unlikely. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 21, 2023 22:03:41 GMT
A plea to the skilled psephologists and statisticians on this site
Can you help me to comprehend how People Polling get to their headline figures (which they label "Only cases selecting a party") from their sample?
They weight their raw sample by "gender, age, socio-economic group, region, vote in the 2019 General Elections and 2016 Brexit referendum vote". Their total weighted sample is the same size as their unweighted one (though crossbreaks aren't). That's fine I understand that.
Then they (apparently) exclude the DKs, WNVs etc to produce their final VI numbers - BUT some dark force appears to intervene.
For GB, their "All Cases" breaks down as
Lab 35% : Con 16% : LD 7% : SNP 3% : REFUK 4% : Green 8% : Other 1% : DK etc 22%.
I was puzzled that this changed to the following when the DKs etc were excluded and it became -
Lab 45% : Con 20% : LD 9% : SNP 5% : REFUK 6% : Green 13% : Other 3%
which was different from the percentages calculated on the reduced number of cases, which would have been -
Lab 47% : Con 22% : LD 9% : SNP 4% : REFUK 5% : Green 11% : Other 1%
Presumably, this was where they were applying the self determined likelihood to vote - Con and Lab presumably less likely to vote, while SNP, REFUK and Green voters were more determined to exercise their democratic voice. With 17% 1-7 certain to vote, that seemed OK.
BUT
The Scots sample (while small at 110) has crazy numbers -
All cases - Lab 28% : Con 14% : LD 3% : SNP 29% : REFUK 0% : Green 4% : Other 0% : DK etc 22%
Headline - Lab 32% : Con 12% : LD 3% : SNP 46% : REFUK 0% : Green 6% : Other 0%
Calculated - Lab 36% : Con 18% : LD 4% : SNP 37% : REFUK 0% : Green 5% : Other 0%
With only 8% of the sample 1-7 CTV, it just isn't possible for LTV to produce such a massive change. To save everyone having to look it up, this is their stated methodology. As oldnat says, the turnout weighting looks like the potential factor at work. I also note they offer the chance to win money for taking part and have a very high level of "don't know" responses to most questions. Politically disengaged people just after the money? Client: GB News Fieldwork Period: March 16-17, 2023 Sampling Method: Online Population Sampled: All adults (18+) in Great Britain Sample Size: 1,289 Data Collection: The data is acquired from a panel provider offering participants the chance to win money. The sampling relies on an online quota approach. Specifically, participants are sampled to meet Office of National Statistics quotas for gender, age, region, socio-economic group, vote in the 2019 general election, and vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum. No criteria are used to over- or undersample respondents. To ensure the polling is representative of the target population, we use official and reliable data sources to match the sample to demographic population targets. Weighting: The sample has been weighted to be representative of the population on the following variables: gender, age, socio-economic group, region, vote in the 2019 General Elections and 2016 Brexit referendum vote. Turnout Weighting for Voting Intention: To gauge the likelihood of a respondent voting in the General Elections, the poll used an 11-point scale to measure the certainty that the respondent would vote if there was an election tomorrow. The voting intention answers are then weighted by the likelihood to vote (by the numerical answer to the question divided by 10, e.g., a respondent providing a likelihood to vote of 8 out of 10 will have a weight of 0.8). Margin of Error: All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party’s support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in 3 chance that they lie within 2 points. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,009
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 22:13:24 GMT
I know a lot of "Remainer" MPs bitterly regret not supporting the Theresa May deal, which they had every chance to do. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55355628That their non cooperation handed the control to the ERG is unfortunate. In any case, point those fingers somewhere else but me, I'm not a MP, nor a Tory / Yellow Tory. I've often wondered what your political affiliations are though, you're very opaque about it (which is your right of course). All I know is that you hate Libdems and freedom of movement and love brexit. Puts you firmly on the other side of the aisle to me.. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn which side of the aisle YOU want to put me on. I dislike the Lib Dems because of what they did to UK politics, which was frankly to set things back 30 years. Had they not supported the Tories in the summer of 2010, then a new election in the autumn would surely have seen David Milliband replace the derided Brown as Labour leader and a progressive Government. As to freedom of movement, I am pleased the cheap labour model has come to and end. I'm sure mini-treaties and accords will soon restore access rights for disgruntled geriatrics who want to buy retirement villas on the Costa del Sol. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Mar 21, 2023 22:19:18 GMT
pjw1961
"Politically disengaged people just after the money? "
They can't all be Tory MPs.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Mar 21, 2023 22:37:59 GMT
"As to freedom of movement, I am pleased the cheap labour model has come to and end. I'm sure mini-treaties and accords will soon restore access rights for disgruntled geriatrics who want to buy retirement villas on the Costa del Sol."
But it will do bugger all for the young people who could spend a year or two travelling and working across Europe expanding their life chances and experiences, rights the brexitoids stole from them despite their overwhelming opposition.
So spare us your sanctimonious bollocks for once.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,009
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Mar 21, 2023 22:43:03 GMT
"As to freedom of movement, I am pleased the cheap labour model has come to and end. I'm sure mini-treaties and accords will soon restore access rights for disgruntled geriatrics who want to buy retirement villas on the Costa del Sol." But it will do bugger all for the young people who could spend a year or two travelling and working across Europe expanding their life chances and experiences, rights the brexitoids stole from them despite their overwhelming opposition. So spare us your sanctimonious bollocks for once. No I won't save my "sanctimonious bollocks" from you. You need to learn to appreciate, together with a few others on here, that people have their own political belief structures. I'm sure there's a cream for your geriatric afflictions by the way. |
|
