|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jun 19, 2024 18:41:13 GMT
Looking beyond the almost certain Labour landslide and putting on my negative hat I find the polls showing TWENTY SEVEN percent of respondents think Farage would make a great or fairly good Prime Minister, plus roughly 35% saying they will still vote either Con or Tory very worrying. they might have done what I did originally and misread it as Prime Monster |
|
|
|
Post by Old Southendian on Jun 19, 2024 18:48:37 GMT
bardin1 Looks like Jimmy Page in front of what I assume is Boleskine House, once owned by Aleister Crowley We have a winner Yes, it features in 'The Song Remains the Same' concert film. My brother was invited in with his girlfriend when hitching with his guitar along Loch Ness. They were invited to engage in some ceremonies but there was a distinctly orgiastic hint to the offer and seeing the assembled rather seedy occultists he and his girlfriend made their escape....one of these times when one's life could have taken a different turn! May be a bit too obvious (to me at least), but here's another Scottish Estate and bearded fellow, one with a rather more upright reputation. Loving the croquet lawn.
Attachments:
|
|
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 Jun 19, 2024 18:49:18 GMT
I have lost all faith in MRPs to do anything except predict the overall position that the Tories will lose and Labour will win - which conventional polling is also doing. They are all over the place in terms of the exact result and individual constituencies. Maybe one will prove more accurate than the others when we see the real results, but for the moment pretty worthless as a guide to anything beyond the big picture. Patrick English of Yougov, talking about MRPs, was just on the radio saying that one of the confounding factors is that as it’s a “change” election, votes are splintering off in various different ways, rather than the more simple and familiar shifts between parties that more normally apply. That does come over as something of an excuse (i.e. "the voters aren't behaving as they should"). The underlying rationale of an MRP is they should be able to map those movements against the assorted variables they are looking at. If they can't then there is a high chance that any prediction in a seat that is at all marginal will end up being wrong. Perhaps it would be preferable only to quote the low to high seat ranges for each party and treat all seats where two or more parties are within 5% (or whatever the appropriate figure is based on that model) as 'too close to call'. . |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 18:49:34 GMT
Norstat
Lab 40(-1)
Con 20(-1)
LD 12(+1)
Ref 19(+2)
Grn 5 (-1)
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 18:53:52 GMT
People Polling
Lab 35
Ref 24
Con 15
LD 12
Grn 8
SNP 3
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jun 19, 2024 18:57:28 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 35% (-4)
REF: 24% (+7)
CON: 15% (-4)
LDM: 12% (+2)
GRN: 8% (-1)
via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun
(Changes with 12 Jun)
|
|
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 Jun 19, 2024 19:04:03 GMT
People Polling Lab 35 Ref 24 Con 15 LD 12 Grn 8 SNP 3 And there was I saying relatively nice things about People Polling and they promptly go mad again. |
|
|
|
Post by reggieside on Jun 19, 2024 19:04:10 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) Christ - i really hope that is totally wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jun 19, 2024 19:06:01 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) I find this very difficult to believe. However, if the fnal result on 5th is anywhere close to this, then it is frightening. Does not auger well for the UK if 24% of voters are prepared to vote for a racist/fascist party. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 19, 2024 19:07:52 GMT
You highlight the dilemma faced by people who lean towards most of the smaller parties: do you vote for the party whose broad values align most closely with yours, despite knowing that the calibre of individual candidates may be low and the detailed policies lacking in credibility, safe in the knowledge that they probably won't win, hoping to help that party grow and improve - and to influence the only parties that can form a government under FPTP? There will also be a lot of people who will vote Green or RefUK because they like the mood music, most of them fully aware that their chosen party's manifesto isn't deliverable as it stands and that many of its candidates aren't good MP material, never mind ministerial. To put it slightly differently, some people will vote Green because they don't think the other parties are taking the climate crisis seriously enough and they believe that the Green Party is helping to move the climate crisis up the public agenda and that voting Green will add more oomph to the general effort to do that. This is exactly where I am. Much of Green Party policy is horseshit, but I will vote Green anyway for this reason. |
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Jun 19, 2024 19:09:12 GMT
|
|
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 Jun 19, 2024 19:12:48 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) Christ - i really hope that is totally wrong. Any poll that purports to show such large, outside of MoE, movements over the space of just 6 days is pretty much by definition dodgy. |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Jun 19, 2024 19:16:48 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) Conducted on behalf of GBNews, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 19, 2024 19:22:36 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) Conducted on behalf of GBNews, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. Rogue poll becomes voodoo poll. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 19:23:55 GMT
Patrick English of Yougov, talking about MRPs, was just on the radio saying that one of the confounding factors is that as it’s a “change” election, votes are splintering off in various different ways, rather than the more simple and familiar shifts between parties that more normally apply. That does come over as something of an excuse (i.e. "the voters aren't behaving as they should"). The underlying rationale of an MRP is they should be able to map those movements against the assorted variables they are looking at. If they can't then there is a high chance that any prediction in a seat that is at all marginal will end up being wrong. Perhaps it would be preferable only to quote the low to high seat ranges for each party and treat all seats where two or more parties are within 5% (or whatever the appropriate figures is based on that model) as 'too close to call'. . yes I was wondering about it. (On the plus side, they said there are a lot more polls these days because of digital technology et cetera. And the average age of Tories is now 71 they said. Given that, one might think sorting healthcare and the waiting lists might be a priority for Tories) |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Jun 19, 2024 20:00:18 GMT
That does come over as something of an excuse (i.e. "the voters aren't behaving as they should"). The underlying rationale of an MRP is they should be able to map those movements against the assorted variables they are looking at. If they can't then there is a high chance that any prediction in a seat that is at all marginal will end up being wrong. Perhaps it would be preferable only to quote the low to high seat ranges for each party and treat all seats where two or more parties are within 5% (or whatever the appropriate figures is based on that model) as 'too close to call'. . yes I was wondering about it. (On the plus side, they said there are a lot more polls these days because of digital technology et cetera. And the average age of Tories is now 71) MRP can only make judgements based on questions that were asked of people in the last census. The way MRP works is by extrapolating out the sample of people to the people who match them in each individual seat, based on those census questions. It's similar to Exit Polls, except Exit polls measure how people say they voted in indicative wards and extrapolate the result from there. So first of all, the reliability decays as that Census data gets more and more out of date. They can attempt to adjust by their own data, but that can never be as accurate. Exit polls are fundamentally more accurate here, because it's easier to identify and collate the indicative wards, than try to estimate the current population of every seat. Then there's the problem that the model is actually generating a range of potential outcomes in individual seats, picking one 'most likely' result, then counting seats based on that. Ideally, MRPs should report a histogram of likely results, but most often they report a seat count and then a backward calculated vote-share estimate. (This is also why when doing a poll-of-polls average you should not include MRP results, because they are third or fourth order extrapolations.) YouGov's claim to their MRP being the gold standard, based on getting the closest guess in 2017, is more of an "All the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order" prediction. The current YouGov MRP includes a huge number of estimated "too close to call" seats, that mean the spread is between getting less seats than the LibDems and getting over 150 seats. The third problem is that collecting the sample of 'the right kind of people' to be representative in enough ways to produce an MRP takes a lot longer than a poll representative of the entire GB population. So the measure ends up being smeared over a much longer period, which might cause sample error if something significant happens in the campaign during that period of time. Generally, the major problem with MRPs is that it suggests a level of precision in the prediction that does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 19, 2024 20:04:15 GMT
Conducted on behalf of GBNews, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. Rogue poll becomes voodoo poll. I wonder if they asked the VI question last? |
|
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 Jun 19, 2024 20:11:08 GMT
I've downloaded the People Polling tables. They offer the following explanation for the Reform increase. It seems to be not so much more people saying they will vote for Reform as fewer people being certain to vote Conservative or Labour.
"Note: In this week's poll we see a major uptick in the voting intention table (2b) for Reform UK. There has been no change in methodology for data processing between this poll and previous ones conducted by PeoplePolling. Driving this change is a few factors. Firstly, in the responses to the survey, there has been a notable swing in Reform UK support compared to previous weeks, in the full sample, 18% of respondents say that they would vote for the party, leaving only Labour ahead of them on 25%. To get to final voting intention figures, those with non-definite voting intention are removed from the sample (i.e. answering don't know, prefer not to say or would not vote to question 2), as are those who say they are less than 6/10 likely to vote in the election for question1. Here, we have seen a decline in the proportion of people with non-definite voting intention. For those voting for the major parties, there has also been a decline in their likelihood of voting - for both Labour and Conservative voters, the proportions who have been excluded from the sample given their lower likelihood to vote roughly doubled compared to last week's poll, while the proportion for Reform UK voters has remained constant. In all cases, the margins here have been quite small, but these small changes have all added up in Reform UK's favour."
|
|
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 Jun 19, 2024 20:25:05 GMT
A couple of observations on the People Polling poll. Firstly there is something weird going on with their C2 sample, which looks improbable.
AB Lab 42, Con 16, Reform 15
C1 Lab 38, Reform 19, Con 15
C2 Reform 42, Lab 20, Con 15
DE Lab 37, Reform 27, Con 15
And, relevantly, the only other questions asked in the poll besides VI, likelihood to vote and demographics were:
To what extent, if at all, would support the following policies. ‘An immediate freeze on all immigration that is not essential for key areas like the National Health Service into Britain’
To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Cut the amount of foreign aid the UK gives to other countries by 50%, which is around £6 billion, so that the UK can spend this money instead on its public services’
To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Having a patriotic curriculum in primary and secondary schools, whereby if children are taught about British or European slavery they must also be taught about non-British and non-European countries that have also engaged in slavery to ensure balance’.
Some people are forecasting that the Labour Party might win a ‘super-majority’ at the forthcoming 2024 general election, winning a majority of nearly 300 seats or more. Which of the following comes closest to your view. Good/Bad/Neither
These are of course Reform policies
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 20:36:52 GMT
yes I was wondering about it. (On the plus side, they said there are a lot more polls these days because of digital technology et cetera. And the average age of Tories is now 71) MRP can only make judgements based on questions that were asked of people in the last census. The way MRP works is by extrapolating out the sample of people to the people who match them in each individual seat, based on those census questions. It's similar to Exit Polls, except Exit polls measure how people say they voted in indicative wards and extrapolate the result from there. So first of all, the reliability decays as that Census data gets more and more out of date. They can attempt to adjust by their own data, but that can never be as accurate. Exit polls are fundamentally more accurate here, because it's easier to identify and collate the indicative wards, than try to estimate the current population of every seat. Then there's the problem that the model is actually generating a range of potential outcomes in individual seats, picking one 'most likely' result, then counting seats based on that. Ideally, MRPs should report a histogram of likely results, but most often they report a seat count and then a backward calculated vote-share estimate. (This is also why when doing a poll-of-polls average you should not include MRP results, because they are third or fourth order extrapolations.) YouGov's claim to their MRP being the gold standard, based on getting the closest guess in 2017, is more of an "All the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order" prediction. The current YouGov MRP includes a huge number of estimated "too close to call" seats, that mean the spread is between getting less seats than the LibDems and getting over 150 seats. The third problem is that collecting the sample of 'the right kind of people' to be representative in enough ways to produce an MRP takes a lot longer than a poll representative of the entire GB population. So the measure ends up being smeared over a much longer period, which might cause sample error if something significant happens in the campaign during that period of time. Generally, the major problem with MRPs is that it suggests a level of precision in the prediction that does not exist. Thanks v. much Jay for that considered response, which has set me thinking. (Now you mention it, IIRC I think the Yougov guy may have also mentioned your point about how there are quite a few seats where not much variation could change the outcome significantly, though you put it better) |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jun 19, 2024 20:57:24 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) Bloody hell! That *has* to be an outlier...the danger, though, is that if, as is likely, this poll gets widely reported, it will give Reform a boost. They must be bricking it in Tory Central...not that I think - for the moment - it will happen, but, 15% with added on tactical voting would be near wipeout territory. |
|
|
|
Post by ping on Jun 19, 2024 20:57:42 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 35% (-4) REF: 24% (+7) CON: 15% (-4) LDM: 12% (+2) GRN: 8% (-1) via @peoplepolling, 18 Jun (Changes with 12 Jun) EC seat prediction based on the above: CON: 45 LAB: 443 LDM: 64 REF: 51 GRN: 2 |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jun 19, 2024 20:57:53 GMT
jayblanc"Ideally, MRPs should report a histogram of likely results, but most often they report a seat count and then a backward calculated vote-share estimate. This is also why when doing a poll-of-polls average you should not include MRP results, because they are third or fourth order extrapolations.)" My understanding of YouGov's published VI percentage figures for MRPs is that these are the sums of the polling responses. These are different from the sums of the constituency estimates, which as you say are extrapolations. So in this case, YouGov's figures of Lab 39%, Con 22%, LD 12%, Ref 15% can be compared to their recent polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by ping on Jun 19, 2024 21:04:16 GMT
To what extent, if at all, would support the following policies. ‘An immediate freeze on all immigration that is not essential for key areas like the National Health Service into Britain’ To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Cut the amount of foreign aid the UK gives to other countries by 50%, which is around £6 billion, so that the UK can spend this money instead on its public services’ To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Having a patriotic curriculum in primary and secondary schools, whereby if children are taught about British or European slavery they must also be taught about non-British and non-European countries that have also engaged in slavery to ensure balance’. Some people are forecasting that the Labour Party might win a ‘super-majority’ at the forthcoming 2024 general election, winning a majority of nearly 300 seats or more. Which of the following comes closest to your view. Good/Bad/Neither These are of course Reform policies Reminds me of the Yes, Prime Minister scene about leading questions: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?" |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 21:05:27 GMT
Ok, I may have used the term loosely. I'm not too well up on the shades of difference between the multifarious factions of the left so I use 'communist' as a catch-all for extreme left. That's fine so long as you don't mind me using fascist as a Catch-all for the extreme right, such as Reform. Well I've been called a Nazi on here several times so go ahead. I would just point out that I have never felt the urge to put Jews in gas chambers though. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 21:08:47 GMT
robbiealive - "Someone posted an interesting argument that fundamental reform of the economy would be more likely to occur in a period of constrained rather than abundant economic growth. Can anyone point me to the post." I posted something along these lines. Not sure if that was what you were thinking? ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/137758/thread Last night I was thinking that you wrote summat like that, possibly because you wrote it to me. so I went looking but couldn’t find it in the thread. I didn’t realise it was further back in the old thread… I didn’t fully reply to you on the matter, going down a related rabbit hole instead, so… Thinking about the impact of constraints leading to bigger changes, in addition to Robbie’s examples of the New Deal, and Attlee’s government etc., we also have the Banking Crisis giving rise to the new-fangled use of QE and in large amounts, which has since become normalised and revived for the pandemic. The constraints of the pandemic crisis gave us the use of furlough, big change in home working, while the recent energy crisis had us doing things rather differently to past energy crises, with the government paying part of people‘s energy bills, and being prepared to let wages rise while trying to keep interest rates lower, and a race to acquire lots more energy. Of course the demands of the wars themselves led to new things, including a lot of scientific innovation leading to major advances like nuclear power, the cavity magnetron, accelerating the development of the jet engine and computers et cetera, and the demands of the First World War saw women taking on expanded roles. Crises might also give governments excuses to do more radical things, of a kind which which some might consider rather more destructive. E.g. the austerity cuts, the destruction of a lot of industry in Thatcher’s first term… |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 19, 2024 21:10:29 GMT
" Does not auger well for the UK if 24% of voters are prepared to vote for a racist/fascist party. "
Well 51% votes for Brexit many said it was antipathy to foreigners that motivated them.
So sadly not that surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 19, 2024 21:11:58 GMT
A couple of observations on the People Polling poll. Firstly there is something weird going on with their C2 sample, which looks improbable. AB Lab 42, Con 16, Reform 15 C1 Lab 38, Reform 19, Con 15 C2 Reform 42, Lab 20, Con 15 DE Lab 37, Reform 27, Con 15 And, relevantly, the only other questions asked in the poll besides VI, likelihood to vote and demographics were: To what extent, if at all, would support the following policies. ‘An immediate freeze on all immigration that is not essential for key areas like the National Health Service into Britain’ To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Cut the amount of foreign aid the UK gives to other countries by 50%, which is around £6 billion, so that the UK can spend this money instead on its public services’ To what extent, if at all, would you support the following policies. ‘Having a patriotic curriculum in primary and secondary schools, whereby if children are taught about British or European slavery they must also be taught about non-British and non-European countries that have also engaged in slavery to ensure balance’. Some people are forecasting that the Labour Party might win a ‘super-majority’ at the forthcoming 2024 general election, winning a majority of nearly 300 seats or more. Which of the following comes closest to your view. Good/Bad/Neither These are of course Reform policiesPeople Polling need to be kicked out of the BPC for this; they have been push-polling. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 21:16:09 GMT
Incidentally Graham, Keynesianism is more coventionally a right-wing policy, albeit soft-right. Keynes was a Liberal, and the use of a stimulus in a downtown, is a way of using the state to save capital when it screws up. Once the downturn is over, the stimulus stops and the hegemony of capital returns. The role of the state is limited to helping capital in a downtown, which was considered preferable to the downward spiral you would get if you didn’t have some state action. Biden, in contrast, is more to the left, as would Labour be if they are able to do the green deal. Because in this instance, you are using the resources of the state is significant ways to assist the economy outside of a downtown, not just when things are in recession. How left-wing it really would be, depends to some extent on whether the state funding goes towards private sector firms, as opposed to securing assets for the state itself, or the people. (Not everybody who considers themselves left-wing, is keen on the idea of state action. However, without significant state action, achieving lofty goals, tends to be decidedly more limited. You can, of course have hybrid approaches, where maybe the state acts more initially, then devolves it more to individuals down the line, but not in a way where caplital takes over again). The highlighted part is not quite right. Keynes was trying to flatten out the 'boom and bust' business cycle, so he also advocated suppressing booms via state action. That is the part politicians never implemented because booms make them popular with the voters. Quite right. Actually his ideas were a just a modern version of the story of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dream in the Bible. For those who don't remember the dream was about 7 fattened cows followed by 7 lean cows. Joseph interpreted this to mean 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of poor harvests. He advised Pharaoh to store as much grain as possible during the years of plenty and the result was no famine in the lean years. The trouble is that governments forget about storing stuff up in the years of plenty. As a little sidenote, an early modern theory about the pyramids was that they were Joseph's grain stores. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 21:21:22 GMT
Bugger politics - anyone with any experience of gallstones? MRI scan suggesting I’ve got them and I’m wondering if they were the cause of the recent stay in hospital that I “bravely “ endured. They should be able to deal with them using lithotripsy. What I don't know is availability on the NHS. Not much of the modern stuff is. Anyway @fecklessmiser, some people seem able to benefit from dietary changes. Google is your friend! |
|
