howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 February 2010
23:4839392#1
three seperate "newspapers" published voters intention for the forthcoming election.
all three pointed to a "hung" parliament.
blue barry must have forgotten to post this, so i thought i would be helpful.
does this mean that all along keith has been right and barry wrong?
1 February 2010
23:5939393#2
Interestingly Howard, the latest poll (for the Independent), whilst showing the Conservatives to be 30 seats short of a majority, shows a Conservative lead amongst men to be 16% whilst they are 4% behind Labour amongst women voters.
No doubt the Conservatives are hoping for a wet polling day as women voters will not wish to mess up their hair-do.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 February 2010
00:0639394#3
good thinking, will also give them more time to finish their household chores whilst us chaps will be busying ourselves choosing the next government.
no doubt the less enlightened will criticise our views.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
2 February 2010
08:2239404#4
Oh no barryw, maybe i was right all along.
What I will promise is not to gloat on here
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
2 February 2010
08:3239405#5
oh no shock horror.the torys being hung what are we going to do now.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2010
09:1839406#6
No problems people. The polls swing one way then the other. I did not mention either the one poll that has kept a 16% Conservative lead in each of it monthly polls since October (Angus Reid).
The big problem with so much of this commentary on polls and in particular the interpretation some make to suggest a hung parliament, is the assumption of a uniform national swing. It just does not happen that way.
The election will be one and lost in just 140 seats, the marginals, polling shows a 2-3% higher Lab to Con swing in these seats than the national swing. Making an allowance for this then most polls are still showing an overall Conservative majority.
What Keith shows, of course, is that the best Labour can now hope for is a hung Parliament. they have given up any hope of winning.
2 February 2010
10:4639411#7
There will be NO hung Parliament. There are other forecasts, not in the rags, of a 50 seat Tory majority and I think that is so much more likely.
Only one question of interest at the next GE, will the LibDems overtake Labour as the second party? With Gordie at the helm, chances of that must be high.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 February 2010
14:2539428#8
i doubt that the libdems will do nothing more than retain control of their traditional seats.
the real issue is how the two smaller(but gaining popularity) parties will affect individual results.
there are so many disenchanted blue voters that will look towards the UKIP and the same red voters voting for the BNP.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2010
14:3639429#9
You ignore the main factor that will drive the actual votes in the election, Howard - the desire to rid the country of the Labour Government. The polls are very helpful to the Conservatives in this respect.
Remember the old adage, Oppositions dont win elections, Governments lose them.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
2 February 2010
23:4439494#10
HOWARD
Yep part of the fear is some of those far right parties winning seats.
rty
As for the Lib Dems ever becoming the 2nd party is always a dream.
As I said BARRYW about 6 months ago i though Labour was dead and buried but in recent months with cameron having to be corrected by his own spin doctors and being found out, more and more people dont want to put them anywhere near getting control.
Cameron as i saidmonths ago has been found out, and his time is ticking away
im the one thats been honest throughout this debate
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2010
08:2639499#11
So keith where on this forum did you say Labour were dead and buried?
We wont have long to wait, no more than a few months before Brown and his shower get kicked out.
3 February 2010
08:3639500#12
As a mere female I am confused. Perhaps I should vote for that nice Yellow party: so colourful, such a cheerful colour. oh My, I am giddy with the choices!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2010
14:1239516#13
Sorry about this being a cut and paste jobby but this article by Mike Smithson on politicalbetting.com has a direct bearing on this thread. I mentioned that Angus Reid have been very consistent in their polling and unlike other pollsters have been showing a steady Conservative lead of double figures well into overall majority territory, landslide in fact. They are out of tune with most polling companies so it is interesting to see why that is. The big question of course, is just who will be right....
""""""......As those who follow these things will know the main characteristics of AR (Angus Reid) have been its consistency from survey to survey and the fact that it is reporting a much lower share for Labour than the other pollsters.
The main reason for the latter is simple - when the raw Angus Reid data is processed its algorithm allocates the number of Labour 2005 voters in direct proportion to what happened five years ago.
All the other UK polling methodologies have the effect of giving Labour more 2005 voters or party identifiers than actually voted for the party last time.
Thus leaving the don't knows and won't says aside the YouGov party ID weighting system allocates about 44% to Labour while the Angus Reid calculation is based on just 36.2% - the actual share that Blair's party achieved in that election. Is it any wonder, then, that the former reports substantially bigger Labour shares than AR?
On top of this Angus Reid does not make the "spiral of silence" adjustment that the other past vote weighting firms - ICM/ComRes/Populus - use. This seeks to allocate the views of the "voting but won't say" participants in its polls according to formulas that have been knocking back the Tory lead by up to three points. Instead the won't says are asked which party they are "most inclined to support".
Inevitably because its numbers are so out of line with the pack AR polls are going to be attacked. I would argue that the only way of doing this is on its methodology and why it's thought that the other pollsters' approaches are more valid in the current context.
As that excellent PB poster, JSFL, repeatedly points out the recent British Social Attitude Survey suggests that there has been a sea change in the past couple of years in the party that people most associate with.
Because Labour over-statement has so dominated UK polling since the 1980s we have become almost inured to it and as I've pointed out before - since 1987 29 of the pre-general election polls have over-stated Labour while just one has understated it......""""
Worth adding that AR were the top, most accurate, polling company in the last Canadian General Election.
I eagerly await the election to see if they are right......