General Election 2019 - 12th December

[drfchound]

Getting away from the anti tory obsession a little bit, the Lib Dem manifesto I thought had some really interesting points about it and here is a problem.  They will claim a vote for them is a remain vote - that's the wrong direction.  How many potentially that don't want to remain are they pushing away despite some decent policies.  The whole election is flawed.

Let's see what is said after Labour's manifesto today (lets be honest on here it'll be seen as the greatest thing ever whatever is in it).
[/quote

Well three or four experts on the bbc lunchtime news pulled a few holes in it.
No doubt that Sydney will be telling us that these people are wrong.

Bfyp post this before the manifesto was published or didn't u c that?

Well yes of course, he did actually write “let’s see what is said after Labours manifesto today”.
Clearly that indicates that it would be due later in the day.
The time on the post was a big clue too.

Why would it make a difference to what I wrote?

[SydneyRover]

So give us the details on what those three out of four experts said? Hound (not ldr)

[drfchound]

So give us the details on what those three out of four experts said? Hound (not ldr)

I don’t need to.
You will know exactly what was said but have conveniently not written anything about it as it contradicts your mantra.
Also I didn’t say three out of four experts.
Once again you are twisting words.

[SydneyRover]

"'Well three or four experts on the bbc lunchtime news pulled a few holes in it.''
No doubt that Sydney will be telling us that these people are wrong.

I don't know bb personally either but I picked you two as twins didn't I

[drfchound]

......and you were wrong about that as well.

[SydneyRover]

So give us the details on what those three out of four experts said? Hound (not ldr)

To keep the debate going a better answer may have been, that's not exactly what I said (but close enough) here is what the experts said and here is the link, but no we're back to splitting hairs and even though I said it (you) you shouldn't expect me to support what i said???








I don’t need to.
You will know exactly what was said but have conveniently not written anything about it as it contradicts your mantra.
Also I didn’t say three out of four experts.
Once again you are twisting words.

[SydneyRover]

Brilliant, classic bb answer 

[drfchound]

Brilliant, classic bb answer 

No, it was me who wrote that.
You are getting so muddled up.

[wilts rover]

I notice there was an opinion poll came out yesterday that gave these results:

CON: 42%
LAB: 31%
LD: 15%

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1197439509022928897

yet when you look at their tables for the actual data of the actual people that they actually spoke too they gave these results:

Con - 35%
Lab - 34%
LD - 7%

https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Final-Telegraph-Tables-20c11d19h.pdf

which had me wondering in this election of ever more fake news - are opinion polls intended to measure opinion - or shape opinion?

*the poll was ComRes for the Daily Telegraph and they would explain their results by saying they 'weighted' them by judging the likelihood of a particular subset of person actually voting

[SydneyRover]

The graph you posted showing how those that read the yellow press are being insulted/taken for a ride sums it up Wilts.

[SydneyRover]

"£75bn to build 150,000 new council and social homes a year, within five years''

This is an ambitious policy but a great one, it has something for everyone. It puts the nation back on a sound caring base, over time it will ensure those struggling with commercial rent get a better go, it will drive down costs for councils having to house people in 'motels' and it will be a boon for business in lots of sectors from developers to builders, to trades, to suppliers and it will give a boost to the economy. What's not to like.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Ah polls. They have to be weighted to be representative that is how they get the polls to be correct or close to it. They have huge amounts of data, trends and analysis on what to weight for. It isnt as simple as just picking 1000 people at random and it being representative.

As for the council houses.  Where are they gonna build them?  Will they actually do it?  This was a big policy of the devolved labour government and it didnt go well did it?  My concern would be the effect on house prices but it would probably be negligible as the people after a council house probably wouldnt be looking to buy anyway.

[SydneyRover]

Remind me how many homes the CONServatives built bfyp?

[SydneyRover]

I know you won't have time so here it is

"'Tories fail to build any of 200,000 starter homes promised in 2015, says watchdog

National Audit Office says no starter homes have been built despite election pledge''

[BillyStubbsTears]

I notice there was an opinion poll came out yesterday that gave these results:

CON: 42%
LAB: 31%
LD: 15%

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1197439509022928897

yet when you look at their tables for the actual data of the actual people that they actually spoke too they gave these results:

Con - 35%
Lab - 34%
LD - 7%

https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Final-Telegraph-Tables-20c11d19h.pdf

which had me wondering in this election of ever more fake news - are opinion polls intended to measure opinion - or shape opinion?

*the poll was ComRes for the Daily Telegraph and they would explain their results by saying they 'weighted' them by judging the likelihood of a particular subset of person actually voting

I'm afraid that is a ridiculous assertion.

Polling companies never,ever take the basic results they find from their surveys as the final answer. They process them for all sorts of reasons. Including likelihood to vote, which is based on previous evidence.

That may or may not be correct, but it is done in good faith. Your implication that it isn't is outrageous and without foundation. But (and I hope it doesn't happen) if Labour loses, I expect this to be one of the myths that will be clung onto by the Left as they look to blame anything bar themselves.

It was ever thus.

[albie]

BST,

I posted this previously, but I think you need to read the link slowly and ponder.
A political tool, but also a financial tool.

"There is a tendency to take polls at face value, and assume they are a genuine attempt to measure the standing of public opinion.

There is an alternative view of how polling can be used as a tool;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash

Longish read, and sometimes complicated....but so is life!"

Not a view from the left, BTW.....from the right of the financial community.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

By the way. That claim that the actual data was
Con - 35%
Lab - 34%
LD - 7%

Go and look at the data in the link you sent.

That WASN'T the top line figures from the poll about current voting intention. It was the figures about how the people they polled had voted in 2017. They do that as another check that they have a representative sample.

So, less of the conspiracy theories, eh?

[wilts rover]

I'm afraid that is a ridiculous assertion.

Polling companies never,ever take the basic results they find from their surveys as the final answer. They process them for all sorts of reasons. Including likelihood to vote, which is based on previous evidence.

That may or may not be correct, but it is done in good faith. Your implication that it isn't is outrageous and without foundation. But (and I hope it doesn't happen) if Labour loses, I expect this to be one of the myths that will be clung onto by the Left as they look to blame anything bar themselves.

It was ever thus.

So asking a question is 'a ridiculous assertion' 'outrageous and without foundation' is it?

If only there had been some academic research done on this - lets check Mr Google

Can political polls alter the choices voters make on election day? Prior research on cognitive consistency suggests they can This article develops a set of hypotheses based on cognitive dissonance theory concerning the effects of exposure to the results of political polls on voters' expectations about the outcome of the election, attitudes toward the candidates, voting intentions, and choice These hypotheses were tested during experiments conducted during the 1992 U S presidential election and the 1993 New York City mayoral election. The results demonstrate that political polls do alter voting behavior Voters use political polls as a way to maintain or move to a state of cognitive consistency. Depending on which candidate voters expect to win as well as the candidate for whom they intend to vote, polls can have no effect, lead voters to change their expectations about who will win, or lead voters to actually change their preferences and their voting behavior. The results have important implications for public policy and for survey methodology.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489665?seq=1

As the author here says - The polling industry doesn’t measure public opinion – it produces it - that's why it is an industry

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/polls-public-opinion-polling-industry

[SydneyRover]

"There was only one loser in this Royal Mail privatisation: the taxpayer''

This describes the Tory's in a nutshell, sell off an asset while promising profits back to the state, a veritable win win, except that the sale is to your mates at a discount, then attack workers rights and benefits so you can pay management massively and put more mates on the board.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/01/royal-mail-privatisation-taxpayer-loser

[Filo]

Has Rees-Mogg been put in a straight jacket and placed into an empty room until 13th December, he appears to have gone missing in action

[SydneyRover]

The best thing anyone could do in this election is to get out and vote.

Register to vote

Register to vote to get on the electoral register, or to change your details. It usually takes about 5 minutes.

You need to be on the electoral register to vote in general elections or referendums.

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

Interesting article, that Guardian one.

Being a big picture person myself, I tend to cut through the polemic and look at the facts that the argument is predicated on. And I see he pours a lot of effort into the case that the polls got it badly wrong in 2010.

Which is interesting. Because the final 8 polls, the day before the election, had the following spread.
Con 35-38, AVE 35.9
Lab 24-29 AVE 27.7
LD 26-28 AVE 27

And the actual result?

Con 36.1
Lab 29.0
LD 23.0

Given how rapidly things moved during that campaign, I'd say that's a result. .

He also says the polls got it wrong in 2016 and 2017. They didn't. The results of the votes were within the margins of error of the polls. In 2017 in particular, the polls very well picked up the remarkable rise in Labour support during the campaign.

Anyway. That's all secondary. I assume you've seen my other post on your mistaken reading of the ComRes data? Which suggests this exchange itself is based on a false premise.

[wing commander]

i don't tend to go on the polls as daft as it sounds,i tend to go on the bookies odds,when it comes to money they don't often call it wrong..Although there is one decent bet out there..

Conservative Overall Majority  4/9
No overall majority                 7/4
Labour Majority                     25/1

Got to say i'm tempted at that 7/4

[BillyStubbsTears]

Did you see QT last night? You can see why Labour struggle down south.

A bloke claiming he earns £80k and this puts him.in the poorest 50% of the population.

Utterly detached from reality.

[drfchound]

Did you see QT last night? You can see why Labour struggle down south.

A bloke claiming he earns £80k and this puts him.in the poorest 50% of the population.

Utterly detached from reality.

Did he say that.

[bpoolrover]

He said he was not in the top 5 percent and probably not in the top 50

[drfchound]

So, PROBABLY not in the top 50%.
Not that he WASNT in the top 50%

[SydneyRover]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

No. You're wrong. His precise words were.
"I am nowhere near in the top 5%, let me tell you, I'm not even in the top 50%,"

[bpoolrover]

Sorry I thought said probably my error