0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don;t give a shit what price you claim to have with the bookies. You have a bet with me.
So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on December 18, 2014, 01:31:35 pmSo you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.
Anyone who believes opionion polls right now needs their head checking. The pattern will change and they are quite volatile. With more parties in the mix there will be a big difference between votes and seats and nobody knows how that will work out, though I fear it will help Labour.There is the possibility of Labour winning but perhaps with less votes than the Tories. I didn't like the AV proposal from a few years back, but more and more as the political landscape changes you have to say that something different probably is needed. I doubt anyone wants to do that though, it is an awkward situation. There's also that possibility of UKIP getting lots of votes and miminal seats, I think that could cause an awful lot of criticsm from the general public.
Obfuscation again. YOU said that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead. They aren't. That was a lie. When that lie is exposed, you start pontificating about trends. You make it all about YOU again. Your ability to discern trends and make predictions from those (stop smirking at the back; actually, no - have a big f***ing belly laugh.)6 months ago you were creaming your pants over Stephen Fisher's predictions from his analysis of the trends. He was saying that IF trends in the run-up to the Election followed previous paths, the Tories were likely to win a majority. You were crowing about it. I patiently explained why his analysis was flawed in the current political environment. I explained why I didn't expect the Tories to close the gap at all, although Lab could leak support away to other parties. I wonder why now, you give us YOUR assess my of the trends, rather than Fisher's. Oh aye! Now I remember. http://electionsetc.com/2014/12/19/forecast-update-19-december-2014/"With just 20 weeks to polling day and still lagging two points behind Labour, the Tories are running our of time to turn things around. Our model now puts their chances of securing a majority at just 16% – the lowest since we starting forecasting last year."There you go. That's an Oxford academic explaining that, even using his model, the analysis of the current trends is that Labour will be the largest party in May. But here's a thing. His predictions have gradually given Labour a larger and larger number of seats as we've got closer to the Election.Back in August, he was predicting that the Tories would be ten seats ahead of Lab in May. By October, he was predicting a tie. Now he's predicting Lab to be 10 seats ahead. Why? Precisely because the changes in support have NOT followed the pattern that they do in the run-up to most elections. Which Fisher is now, tacitly, admitting. Funny how you never mention him these days. Actually, not funny. Typical of you. Because you mendaciously pick and choose evidence that supports what you WANT to be true, and you assiduously ignore everything else. It is that approach that disgusts and riles me. It's an MO that needs slapping down any time anyone comes across it. Now f*** off and let me get back to work.
Mick1) You originally said that the Tories have a consistent 3 point lead. When brought up on that claim, you said that it was consistent from 2 polls, spread one month apart by one polling company. Your original comment was, in the most generous interpretation, lacking in a bit of detail. It's actually an attempt to deceive.2) You state that IPSOS-MORI are your preferred polling company. You don't explain what it is about their approach that gives you such confidence in them. Or why you never mentioned that they were your preferred one over the past 3 years when they were regularly giving Labour bigger than average leads. You've chosen them because they tell you what you want to believe to be correct.3) You then go on to give us YOUR opinion about the trends over the last 2 years. When I point you in the direction of the Oxford academic that YOU yourself were quoting 6 months ago, who is now saying that the trends are NOT going strongly enough to give the Tories a victory, you simply ignore that. Par for the course.4) You say that the other polling companies have Labour and the Tories neck and neck. Another lie. Over the last 3 months, the other polls have had Labour consistently 2-ish% ahead on average. They vary from poll to poll, because that is what happens with polls. A tiny number have the Tories 1% ahead or level. A tiny number have Labour 5-7% ahead. But the overwhelming majority and the average have Labour 1.5-2.5% ahead. That is not neck and neck. That is Labour majority territory (and before you start yelping about your assessment of trends, go and read Stephen Fisher's latest post).Same old same old. Every boring time.
Mick.I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.Done. Finished. Goodbye.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on December 19, 2014, 01:47:35 pmMick.I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.Done. Finished. Goodbye.Like I say, you can't see the wood for the trees. Your last post is a classic example of you getting bogged down in the minutiae of a debate. I accept there are variances in polls and the data does not 100% represent what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow. However as I am a big picture sort of person, I can see what is happening. I can then make an informed judgement of what will happen in 5 months. You base all your prognostications on the general election happening tomorrow. Not a good idea.The Labour lead has fallen over the last few months. Being a bit economical with the truth there aren't we? Taking your statement literally anyone would think Labour have held a steady lead for years and it has only just started to fall over the last few months. It's fallen over the last 2 and a half years from 44% to around 32% now.
Polls mean very little, it's like holding a betting slip, and just because you think say Donny Rovers will win the league, it doesn't make it necessarily so.The Tories are out to cripple the poor by any means possible, how many food banks and soup kitchens have opened since they came in to power?.Labour know the mistakes they made under different leadership, under Ed Miliband the country will be ran by a Decent family man, who doesn't make promises he can't keep.People take him not commenting on everything as having no ideas, i take it that he doesn't have all the information, so doesn't promise to fix everything if he is put in power, as it isn't possible, under any government there will be hard times, but under Labour they will cut things in a slower more manageable way.The Conservatives have stunted progress.
It has been reported that Harrison has been courted by various hedge funds, and the pay rise, tucked away in a footnote to the salary list, may have been an attempt to take his earnings closer to what he might earn in the private sector.
We're all in this together the Tories told us, thats how we'll reduce the defecit Gideon said.I think this chap got an exemptionhttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrisonAnd that defacit is really coming down isn't Mickhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-needs-miracle-after-4842676
Spending doesn't need to be cut like all the right wing nut jobs would have you believe. Deficit = £90 billion, tax avoidance by the rich and corporations = £120 billion. Done n dusted...piece of piss.
Quote from: IC1967 on January 01, 2015, 04:00:26 pmMore bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.Get in.Michael you sir are a plank, carrying all this political stuff on your back all these years, you must be in need of some psychotherapy.
More bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.Get in.