Indicative of the general trend, here are some interesting polling results from Ipsos MORI that are out today, kindly shared by the 'Britain Elects' Twitter account...
https://twitter.com/britainelects
1.
The party which 'has the best team of leaders to deal with the country's problems':
CON: 43%
LAB: 16%
UKIP: 4%
LDEM: 2%
2.
The party which 'has the best policies for the country as a whole':
CON: 35%
LAB: 25%
UKIP: 6%
LDEM: 4%
3.
The party which 'would be best at looking after the interests of people like you':
CON: 33%
LAB: 29%
UKIP: 8%
LDEM: 5%
The last has Labour closer to the Conservatives than with the other questions, but still behind by several percentage points.
We can also see that (as I predicted) UKIP support has really fallen
away, as more and more people see them as (a) not as credible as many
once thought, and (b) a dead end, going nowhere. None of this is
surprising, of course, and merely continues a trend that became well-established several months ago.
Indeed, UKIP has become irrelevant (as I had predicted for some time) and the Lib Dems still are, leaving us with the very real prospect of no proper opposition party before much longer. As I have indicated before, including recently, that is not a good thing.
The only prospect I foresee is the one I have been anticipating for several years (as some reading this will be aware) which is that the Lib Dems will need to get their act together and be prepared to take on that task within the next three or four years. No-one else is set to do it!
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 January 2016
Monday, 21 April 2014
Reading The Signs No. 2 – The Slanted Poll
Ever since Yes, [Prime] Minister we have all learned just how easy it is to structure and present an opinion poll that is likely to deliver the answer that is wanted, and not necessarily the answer that is true...
There are many techniques involved in slanting poll results, though I am not going to explore them in detail here. Just an example or two should suffice. Actually, just one, as the 'Mittens Romney' poll (don't ask!) I also had lined-up for this turns out to be full of so many holes that, on deeper research, it has been difficult to explain just how that one seems to have come about. However, the mere fact that someone commissioned such a poll is in itself indicative of a specific intent.
Anyway, moving on...
Just recently, a local newspaper in my home county ran an online click-on embedded poll on one of its news pages regarding the forthcoming Euro elections. For which party would you vote? was the single question, and one simply clicked on the preferred choice from a bullet list and then clicked Submit. All standard stuff for this kind of thing; and they had taken basic precautions to prevent multiple voting (I always test this in cases such as this).
So, what was the problem? It was that the article talked almost exclusively about UKIP, and the full-width photographs were of the UKIP leader. No other party was thus featured, merely mentioned in passing. You can of course guess the outcome of the poll: a 'resounding' victory for UKIP.
I saw it coming; but cast my own vote anyway, so as not to be able to be accused of 'allowing' that result but not foing anything to help prevent it. Incidentally, the psychology behind this particular slanting, and in particular why it works, is a little more subtle than most. With a little thought, and by realising the somewhat obvious nature of the local rag's readership, it becomes obvious, but isn't so immediately.
The bottom line is that it has no value, and it also shows up the newspaper for its bias – and I for one have learned that lesson and will never trust them with anything again. That trust has been destroyed for ever – and it is entirely their own fault.
For all reading this, the message is stark and clear: be careful and don't be taken in, no matter how authoritatively something is presented and from which source. In reality there are very few of us without a hidden agenda and who always 'play it straight'. ou know one such already (if you've been paying close enough attention over these years I have been blogging!) and I am being pulled toward the conclusion that I might have to do more in the field yet again – though I'd rather not have to, as I now have other, equally engrossing, interests.
It's all enough to drive one up the 'poll'!
There are many techniques involved in slanting poll results, though I am not going to explore them in detail here. Just an example or two should suffice. Actually, just one, as the 'Mittens Romney' poll (don't ask!) I also had lined-up for this turns out to be full of so many holes that, on deeper research, it has been difficult to explain just how that one seems to have come about. However, the mere fact that someone commissioned such a poll is in itself indicative of a specific intent.
Anyway, moving on...
Just recently, a local newspaper in my home county ran an online click-on embedded poll on one of its news pages regarding the forthcoming Euro elections. For which party would you vote? was the single question, and one simply clicked on the preferred choice from a bullet list and then clicked Submit. All standard stuff for this kind of thing; and they had taken basic precautions to prevent multiple voting (I always test this in cases such as this).
So, what was the problem? It was that the article talked almost exclusively about UKIP, and the full-width photographs were of the UKIP leader. No other party was thus featured, merely mentioned in passing. You can of course guess the outcome of the poll: a 'resounding' victory for UKIP.
I saw it coming; but cast my own vote anyway, so as not to be able to be accused of 'allowing' that result but not foing anything to help prevent it. Incidentally, the psychology behind this particular slanting, and in particular why it works, is a little more subtle than most. With a little thought, and by realising the somewhat obvious nature of the local rag's readership, it becomes obvious, but isn't so immediately.
The bottom line is that it has no value, and it also shows up the newspaper for its bias – and I for one have learned that lesson and will never trust them with anything again. That trust has been destroyed for ever – and it is entirely their own fault.
For all reading this, the message is stark and clear: be careful and don't be taken in, no matter how authoritatively something is presented and from which source. In reality there are very few of us without a hidden agenda and who always 'play it straight'. ou know one such already (if you've been paying close enough attention over these years I have been blogging!) and I am being pulled toward the conclusion that I might have to do more in the field yet again – though I'd rather not have to, as I now have other, equally engrossing, interests.
It's all enough to drive one up the 'poll'!
Friday, 31 January 2014
Labour Poll Lead Vanishing
I have recently tweeted about the real polling situation, as there have been polls all over the place and all sorts of unrealistic conclusions being drawn (I'd say assumed in some cases) from them. I said that the trend was ever downward and was now around four and a half percent.
Just in case there were any doubt, here's a graph of the Labour lead percentage from all the polls from the last twelve months. This came to me indirectly, so I do not know who kindly put all this (admittedly public) data together...
Probably the most interesting part of the chart is the trend line, which shows that just a year ago that lead was ten and a half percent. It is indeed now effectively around four and a half points – less than half what it was just twelve months back – and the underlying trend has been consistently downward.
My own expectation, however, is that the rate of decline will slow during this year and perhaps a little beyond, but I am still expecting a Conservative lead of around three or four percent by election day in May next year. Actual voting will, I strongly suspect, result in a modest Conservative overall majority of around ten to fourteen seats, unless something very strange and completely unexpected occurs in the meantime.
Essentially, all the pieces are already in place, and it's mostly day-to-day and detail stuff that will fill the next fifteen months. Thus I am now sufficiently confident to make this prediction public now (I have known it for a little while) and it will be interesting to find out in May 2015 whether I am anywhere near right.
Just in case there were any doubt, here's a graph of the Labour lead percentage from all the polls from the last twelve months. This came to me indirectly, so I do not know who kindly put all this (admittedly public) data together...
Probably the most interesting part of the chart is the trend line, which shows that just a year ago that lead was ten and a half percent. It is indeed now effectively around four and a half points – less than half what it was just twelve months back – and the underlying trend has been consistently downward.
My own expectation, however, is that the rate of decline will slow during this year and perhaps a little beyond, but I am still expecting a Conservative lead of around three or four percent by election day in May next year. Actual voting will, I strongly suspect, result in a modest Conservative overall majority of around ten to fourteen seats, unless something very strange and completely unexpected occurs in the meantime.
Essentially, all the pieces are already in place, and it's mostly day-to-day and detail stuff that will fill the next fifteen months. Thus I am now sufficiently confident to make this prediction public now (I have known it for a little while) and it will be interesting to find out in May 2015 whether I am anywhere near right.
Friday, 1 November 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 1 November 2013
It has been another of those busy weeks, so I'll have to be selective or this will end up too long for comfortable reading – not that the content necessarily makes for comfortable reading, of course, but I try to temper it with my own thoughts and experiences...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
A Knock for Nick
Actually, several over the past two weeks; but this from Guido shows the Lib Dem leader's apparent dual standards when it comes to his own education as against his public stance against Michael Gove's education reforms. It's that question of 'unqualified' teachers – in reality, those not indoctrinated into the politically-driven 'training' style of the (as is now widely known) Lefty 'profession'.
That's what this whole debate is really about: it has nothing to do with standards and quality, only about control by political interests, as generations of unqualified teachers have shown. Nick Clegg himself is an example of the outcome of that freedom. There are times when qualifications are of value, but this turns out not only to be one of the exceptions, but also to be long-established.
While we're looking at hapless Nick, just a few days earlier Fraser Nelson was looking at this and other aspects of the Lib Dems and the behaviour of that party and its leader. It's Fraser in his telling-it-as-he-finds-it mode, and well worth reading throughout.
On a Lib Dem related matter, also in the Speccie on the same day, James Forsyth considered what David Cameron needs to offer Nick Clegg in order to keep the minor partner in the Coalition on board.
Now, if they had done what I outlined a while ago, this wouldn't be an issue for much longer, and the remaining programme of joint work should be well established. Remember: I (and a few others) thought that the two parties could start to separate into more distinct entities in their own right, starting from the recent conference season. Indeed, we have already seen fairly strong signs of that happening.
The idea is to reach a point whereby all the pre-election initiatives and legislation are either now complete or are currently going through the necessary stages, from now on, and nothing brand new (except for emergencies) should suddenly appear at this relatively late stage in the parliamentary five-year term. I'm reasonably confident that this is exactly how it has all been set up, behind the scenes, by the two party leaders.
Expect the separation to be made decisive and unambiguous by next year's autumn conference season, by when only tidying-up and minor (uncontroversial) legislative matters should be all that's left to be done before the May 2015 election. Meanwhile, as James says, the Conservatives in particular need to construct their manifesto – and it looks like it's already well in progress...
Leverage
In the ongoing saga of the UNITE Union, news of the intimidation techniques used by their so-called Leverage Team has reached the public awareness. It is noteworthy that they feel fully justified in applying such techniques, and have all the excuses ready. Of course, as the civilised world realises, only the lowest of the low would even contemplate such tactics, and only absolute trash would put them into practice.
The term 'Commie filth' didn't come about as a nasty insult devised especially for that purpose: it came into being from experience of what such types do in pursuance of their own agenda, here and anywhere else in the world. Put yourself in the position of someone on the receiving end – or, even more pertinently, one of their children.
There is no excuse in the Universe for that behaviour; and I think it might need to be treated as a much more serious offence than it is at present. Society should not be in effect encouraging this through a light-touch penal code.
I don't know how many members have now left the Union as a result of this (and all the other nasties that have been going on for years), but here's the story of one. Clearly noone with a shred of decency can now be a member of such an outfit – which tells us something about those who still are members and who have no plans to even consider leaving. Although I have no wish to turn the tables on them, it would be interesting to know how they'd respond if that did happen. Boot on the other foot, and all that...
The ongoing Falkirk candidate selection row continues this week with another delightful inside-track piece from former Labour member Dan Hodges. A batch of leaked emails has told much of the real story anyway, and it fell to the likes of Dan to write-up their significance, along with all the rest that has been going on during this unhappy (and hugely embarrassing, mostly for Labour) saga.
He correctly deduces, from the evidence now before us, that it is Ed[ward] Miliband whose personal reputation stands to take the greatest hit, rather than his party or even the Union that seemingly tried to rig the selection. As someone who has personally encountered selection rigging, I am very much alert to and cognisant of those methods described and other tactics used (only!) by the corrupt with their own agendas.
During all of the above, the ever-wily Jack Straw MP tried distancing himself from that Union, as this short video clip shows. Not that he was telling us anything we didn't already know, of course(!) Whether anyone believes his new-found stance is a matter for conjecture; but it's useful to have this on the record from a long-standing Labour MP, no matter how dubious his true motives!
Newman is the same old (Labour/Commie) man
Red Ed (Miliband) will continue to be unable to shake off that description while he is still subservient to the likes of UNITE's Len McCluskey, and also while he is ineffective at dealing with the numerous hard left (indeed, Communist) types firmly embedded within the Labour party and including both current elected members and those selected to stand in 2015. This is the story of one of the hopefuls.
To be blunt I have to say that it differs in no practical measure from those I have seen non-stop appearing within the Labour ranks and being picked as candidates, often getting elected (typically in safe Labour seats, but not only in those). Labour has, throughout most of its existence, been a Communist-style party with a very cleverly-manufactured public face to make it less obvious, and that certainly hasn't changed in the nearly forty months since Ed-M took on the party leadership.
Indeed, it has become the norm once again, and not even as well camouflaged as in earlier times – although that isn't helped by modern technology: it is much more difficult to conceal such truths nowadays, so it isn't necessarily down to poorer standards of deception. The example of Andy Newman will be just 'more of the same old Labour' to seasoned veterans like me; but might be more shocking to the younger generations who didn't live through the Foor/Scargill/Wilson (and the rest) years.
To anyone in that position, I can assure you that we've seen it all before, and it is and more-or-less always has been the true face of Labour, despite the veneer of seeming respectability and moderation they try to slap over the red rot to hide it from public view. They are just as totalitarian in nature as those running North Korea right now, and Labour-run governments have always headed in a similar direction, as is nowadays a lot better documented – and more easily publicly visible – than it was in my younger days..
Don't squander the advantage this generation has over mine: learn the lessons and learn them well! Today's world has not only better prospects of understanding the reality, but also has no real excuse for not doing so.
Completely Up The Poll
Jusr a brief mention of this very useful post from Dr Anthony Wells about misleading headlines to reports of and discussions of opinion polls. Long-term visitors to my 'blog will already be aware of how I always play it straight with everything I write, including polling news. The message here is not to be lulled into believing that all others act with such integrity when dealing with the same topic.
The good Dr Wells (whom I have met and talked to at some length) puts the record straight on a couple of recent examples of misleading headlines, and in the process reminds us to be sufficiently alert not to be taken in by such practices.
The Tommy-Knockers
It has been standard big media practice to 'knock' the English Defence League (EDL) and its founder Tommy Robinson. When said Mr Robinson decided to quit the EDL they media hacks and editors must have been in paroxysms of ecstasy: their boat had come in!
In reality, the EDL for all its many faults was never anything like the outfit it was portrayed to be, and some have cited considerable evidence – sometimes backed up with hard-to-challenge photographics records of what actually did happen at EDL meet-ups – that reminded one of the anti-Israel reporting that has been thoroughly documented in other 'blogs for years (I have studied much of that material myself).
Despite all of that, the EDL was known to attract the less idealistic and more thuggish elements of society – I'm sure not by design, and it was just an unfortunate side-effect – so there is some valid criticism of them 'out there'. Much, however, plainly isn't justified. I have been watching the scene for a couple of years now, so have become reasonably well clued-up on what is and what isn't accurate in the various reports I have encountered.
Daniel Hannan MEP has his own take on what he perceives to be a symbiotic style of relationship between the EDL, the Islamists (often a..k.a. Islamo-Fascists or, in the Hannan piece, Islamo-nutters) and even the ironically-named Unite Against Fascism (UAF) folk. By appreciating how all sides act at times, Dan paints what I think is not only a more comprehensive picture of this whole sorry business, but also a more helpful one than others tend to offer.
As for Tommy Robinson's departure from the EDL, this was recently covered in a BBC documentary. Ah, I can already hear alarm bells ringing in my readers' heads! Yes, you are right to be suspicious, though the BBC did a generally good job. However there were other aspects that need bringing to people's awareness – and Douglas Murray has done just that. As one might by now expect of Douglas, he covers not only all you need to know about the programme and its main Islamic participant in typical thoroughness, and then goes on to look at deeper questions.
It's fairly long; but I think you will find the time reading it through time well spent and 9as with Dan) helpful; and that is what we need most in regard to a topic that is somewhat sensitive and prone to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, including of its most media-visible players.
On The Record
Coming closer to home, I usually like to feature at least one item from my local area and (more often than not) its council. This week, it is the initiative by Eric Pickles to allow the public to record Council meetings in sound and/or video, perhaps including committees as well..
Of course, this will not become law for a little while, owing to parliamentary and legal procedures, and at this early stage no-one knows what will even be proposed, let alone finally passed into law or equivalent. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Medway Council did not permit recording by the public of a recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting.
This has infuriated local Labour, who (several weeks ago, a full three weeks before the policy proposal had even been announced) were planning to make and use such a recording for purely party political reasons (as everyone realised at the time, apart from any dullards if indeed any were present), and they are – predictably – having a go at the 'wicked Tories' for refusing such permission.
It also has to be said: if Labour now say "it’s wholly wrong for people not being able to record or film in public meetings", why did they do nothing whatsoever about this during their thirteen years in government? It has taken the Coalition Government just three years (barely a quarter of Labour's tenure) to come up with such a proposal: one that Labour clearly never actually wanted – at least until they could see a way of turning it to their own political advantage.
As always but always with Labour, what is dressed up as being in the 'public' interest is in reality pushed by them only when it is in their interest – nothing to do with the public at all...
Monday, 7 October 2013
Big Polling
Lord Ashcroft is known for his big polls and for deriving a lot of valuable information from his polls of (typically) tens of thousands of people – much more than the more commonplace ComRes/ICM/Populus/Survation/YouGov (et al) polls.
One very interesting, and pertinent, result from the three such big polls the Noble Lord has commissioned so far this calendar year has been in respect of trust on the nation's economy. This has been firmly identified as by a fair margin the most important issue in the public consciousness, in several polls from other sources as well.
These polls were conducted in January, June and September of this year, and the responses can be tabulated as Cameron + Osborne, Miliband + Balls, or Neither/Don't Know (i.e. 'the rest'). The results were as follows...
Now, come September, we see not only a huge widening of the gap between those two teams, from just five percentage points in June to a whopping 23% difference in September, we also see the 'uncertainty factor' diminishing.to barely more than one in five. That suggests increased confidence in our economic recovery, as well as the political shift away from the Labour duo toward the Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor.
This bodes well in terms of the stepwise shift of what will ultimately be reflected in actual votes, come May 2015, and increases the likelihood of a Conservative majority.
In other polling (and related) news, Ed[ward] Miliband's stock has gone up among his/Labour's supporters post-conference, cementing his position as party leader for the time being at least, after a period when it was looking rather shaky.
Of course, the bulk of Labour supporters are easily swayed by the Miliband style (and similar) as some of us have noted over not just a few years but several decades. That does not matter in this context, though: it still makes all of this info' combined a true 'win-win' for the Conservatives.
It's a bit like a Seldon Crisis, an analogy I have referenced before. A logical 'truth table' would show that, whatever any player in this scenario did or did not do, the ultimate outcome will still be the same. Think of the Bel Riose episode from Asimov's Foundation and Empire, and the truth table that was expounded in those pages, and you'll get the idea.
It will come as no surprise to regular visitors to this site that I am continually modelling and revising that model as updated data comes to me, so I already have fairly solid ideas about how the next General Election will go. Not that I am as good on national elections as I am on locals, but it's still useful for me to do this, for a whole range of reasons. I shall say no more for now, though I might soon put my predictions in a sealed envelope for someone independent to guard and open only after the full results are in.
I'm tempted....
One very interesting, and pertinent, result from the three such big polls the Noble Lord has commissioned so far this calendar year has been in respect of trust on the nation's economy. This has been firmly identified as by a fair margin the most important issue in the public consciousness, in several polls from other sources as well.
These polls were conducted in January, June and September of this year, and the responses can be tabulated as Cameron + Osborne, Miliband + Balls, or Neither/Don't Know (i.e. 'the rest'). The results were as follows...
- Jan – Cam/Osbo 40%; Mili/Balls 31%; Rest 29%
- Jun – Cam/Osbo 38%; Mili/Balls 33%; Rest 29%
- Sep – Cam/Osbo 51%; Mili/Balls 28%; Rest 21%
Now, come September, we see not only a huge widening of the gap between those two teams, from just five percentage points in June to a whopping 23% difference in September, we also see the 'uncertainty factor' diminishing.to barely more than one in five. That suggests increased confidence in our economic recovery, as well as the political shift away from the Labour duo toward the Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor.
This bodes well in terms of the stepwise shift of what will ultimately be reflected in actual votes, come May 2015, and increases the likelihood of a Conservative majority.
In other polling (and related) news, Ed[ward] Miliband's stock has gone up among his/Labour's supporters post-conference, cementing his position as party leader for the time being at least, after a period when it was looking rather shaky.
Of course, the bulk of Labour supporters are easily swayed by the Miliband style (and similar) as some of us have noted over not just a few years but several decades. That does not matter in this context, though: it still makes all of this info' combined a true 'win-win' for the Conservatives.
It's a bit like a Seldon Crisis, an analogy I have referenced before. A logical 'truth table' would show that, whatever any player in this scenario did or did not do, the ultimate outcome will still be the same. Think of the Bel Riose episode from Asimov's Foundation and Empire, and the truth table that was expounded in those pages, and you'll get the idea.
It will come as no surprise to regular visitors to this site that I am continually modelling and revising that model as updated data comes to me, so I already have fairly solid ideas about how the next General Election will go. Not that I am as good on national elections as I am on locals, but it's still useful for me to do this, for a whole range of reasons. I shall say no more for now, though I might soon put my predictions in a sealed envelope for someone independent to guard and open only after the full results are in.
I'm tempted....
Thursday, 19 September 2013
Polling Blues for the Reds
The continuing trend on which I reported last week has today reached a landmark, in which a major polling company has reported a level-pegging result for the Conservatives and Labour.
This is YouGov in The Sun, and the four significant parties' figures are as follows...
Of course, as I have mentioned on several occasions in the past, this is well within the widely-accepted margin of error of plus-or-minus 3% on any of those figures, so genuinely doesn't mean too much in isolation.
It will be a worrying time for Labour, though, as they prepare to go to their conference this coming weekend, and they must be hoping that at least one more poll will come out before their event opens that tells a better (for them) story. Remember: this is the Coalition's mid-term, and only a year ago Labour had a decent (though not all that impressive) 12 to 14 percent lead.
It could equally well go the other way, with Labour's lead not just wiped out but starting to reverse – and that really would affect the atmosphere at Brighton during those upcoming few days...
This is YouGov in The Sun, and the four significant parties' figures are as follows...
- Conservtives – 36%
- Labour – 36%
- Lib Dem – 10%
- UKIP – 12%
Of course, as I have mentioned on several occasions in the past, this is well within the widely-accepted margin of error of plus-or-minus 3% on any of those figures, so genuinely doesn't mean too much in isolation.
It will be a worrying time for Labour, though, as they prepare to go to their conference this coming weekend, and they must be hoping that at least one more poll will come out before their event opens that tells a better (for them) story. Remember: this is the Coalition's mid-term, and only a year ago Labour had a decent (though not all that impressive) 12 to 14 percent lead.
It could equally well go the other way, with Labour's lead not just wiped out but starting to reverse – and that really would affect the atmosphere at Brighton during those upcoming few days...
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Polls Apart
This is just a relatively short post on the opinion polls national 'voting intention' recent results...
During much of July and all of August the figures were, as happens at the same time every year, significantly distorted by the absence of many voters on holiday. Even if they weren't away, many (though not all) might well have had their notifications from polling companies turned off for the suration, and their 'phones left on voice-mail mode.
This didn't stop those who ought to know better seeming to give undue weight to the polls during that period, without much if any caution regarding the seasonal unreliability of said polls. Thus we had widely conflicting results, often from the same pollster within just days.
Now that we are in mid-September, things seem to have settled back to normal, and the tentative conclusions I have been able to draw from the three periods (a) in the run-up to the holiday season (b) a best-guess from during that season and (c) since the end of August is that Labour's lead has been dropping throughout.
Their lead had been around ten percent earlier in the year, and was more like eight percent by early July.During the holiday season the best that can be deduced is that it looks like this might well have dropped a further point or two during those six to eight weeks.
This month, though, we are fairly firmly in the six-points-and-below area; and with Ed[ward] Miliband's poor performance at the TUC Conference and big troubles with the Unions and within his party, and economic recovery starting to firm-up a little despite Labour's perpetual claims regarding Coalition policies, it will probably narrow still further.
Indeed, it is more than possible that, after the imminent autumn party conference season, the polling could have crossed over and Labour end up behind the Conservatives in terms of voting intention. Local Labour spinners are trying to contrive ways to make it look otherwise, interestingly using specific techniques they have never employed before – i.e. only when it suits them – but I am too old a hand at this business of polling to be taken in, and nor should you.
The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, are currently around nine percent, so aren't really in contention and are not likely to be by May 2015. They'd do best to concentrate on local elections where those are being held on the same day, such as here in Medway. Here, their parliamentary candidates cannot get anywhere and it'd be a waste of scarce resources to put too much effort into their campaigns.
That is about as far as I can read from the story to date; but no doubt I shall have another look at this topic in (say December, or earlier if something dramatic and/or unexpected occurs in the meantime.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this yesterday, there has been a poll with a three-point Labour lead, and an other showing a four percent lead. It appears that, as I indicated above, the trend away from Labour is indeed continuing.
During much of July and all of August the figures were, as happens at the same time every year, significantly distorted by the absence of many voters on holiday. Even if they weren't away, many (though not all) might well have had their notifications from polling companies turned off for the suration, and their 'phones left on voice-mail mode.
This didn't stop those who ought to know better seeming to give undue weight to the polls during that period, without much if any caution regarding the seasonal unreliability of said polls. Thus we had widely conflicting results, often from the same pollster within just days.
Now that we are in mid-September, things seem to have settled back to normal, and the tentative conclusions I have been able to draw from the three periods (a) in the run-up to the holiday season (b) a best-guess from during that season and (c) since the end of August is that Labour's lead has been dropping throughout.
Their lead had been around ten percent earlier in the year, and was more like eight percent by early July.During the holiday season the best that can be deduced is that it looks like this might well have dropped a further point or two during those six to eight weeks.
This month, though, we are fairly firmly in the six-points-and-below area; and with Ed[ward] Miliband's poor performance at the TUC Conference and big troubles with the Unions and within his party, and economic recovery starting to firm-up a little despite Labour's perpetual claims regarding Coalition policies, it will probably narrow still further.
Indeed, it is more than possible that, after the imminent autumn party conference season, the polling could have crossed over and Labour end up behind the Conservatives in terms of voting intention. Local Labour spinners are trying to contrive ways to make it look otherwise, interestingly using specific techniques they have never employed before – i.e. only when it suits them – but I am too old a hand at this business of polling to be taken in, and nor should you.
The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, are currently around nine percent, so aren't really in contention and are not likely to be by May 2015. They'd do best to concentrate on local elections where those are being held on the same day, such as here in Medway. Here, their parliamentary candidates cannot get anywhere and it'd be a waste of scarce resources to put too much effort into their campaigns.
That is about as far as I can read from the story to date; but no doubt I shall have another look at this topic in (say December, or earlier if something dramatic and/or unexpected occurs in the meantime.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this yesterday, there has been a poll with a three-point Labour lead, and an other showing a four percent lead. It appears that, as I indicated above, the trend away from Labour is indeed continuing.
Friday, 9 August 2013
Polling Snapshot
Just for information, especially bearing in mind that during the summer holiday period the opinion polls always go all over the place, I have been very carefully evaluating polls during the past several weeks. I thought it worth posting a short item just to summarise what has happened.
Nearly all polls have been showing a Labour lead over the Conservatives, in terms of national voting intention, of between four and eight percentage points. The majority of these have fallen within the 4-6% range. Now, bearing in mind that the wealthier folk are more likely to be away on holiday than others, this is an interesting development that I'd say has become a trend.
Probably the main cause of this reduction in Labour's lead has been the drop in UKIP support – which I think I was perhaps the only commentator to firmly predict would happen, all along. Probably the second largest factor has been Labour's inability to put forward a credible and defensible position regarding the economy, putting out mixed messages for a while and then falling silent.
Indeed, they have become just about silent on all topics for the past several weeks, allowing others (in particular the almost hyperactive Conservatives) to dominate the big media outlets for commentary. Although Chuka Umunna was around for a while, even he has now fallen silent – possibly because of his latest gaffe as revealed by Guido.
When (if?) the shadow cabinet come back before the public gaze, they might have devised between them a new message with some resonance, which would be a considerable improvement on the efforts so far in the Miliband era. Perhaps the polling might then shift a few points back in their direction.
Personally, I think this is possible, though my gut feeling is that they have lost so much credibility over these past few years that it is unlikely to last long, especially as it is nearly always easy to unpick Labour's claims – as we have seen so many times – so they are likely to be looking for a replacement slogan/line-to-take before very long...
Nearly all polls have been showing a Labour lead over the Conservatives, in terms of national voting intention, of between four and eight percentage points. The majority of these have fallen within the 4-6% range. Now, bearing in mind that the wealthier folk are more likely to be away on holiday than others, this is an interesting development that I'd say has become a trend.
Probably the main cause of this reduction in Labour's lead has been the drop in UKIP support – which I think I was perhaps the only commentator to firmly predict would happen, all along. Probably the second largest factor has been Labour's inability to put forward a credible and defensible position regarding the economy, putting out mixed messages for a while and then falling silent.
Indeed, they have become just about silent on all topics for the past several weeks, allowing others (in particular the almost hyperactive Conservatives) to dominate the big media outlets for commentary. Although Chuka Umunna was around for a while, even he has now fallen silent – possibly because of his latest gaffe as revealed by Guido.
When (if?) the shadow cabinet come back before the public gaze, they might have devised between them a new message with some resonance, which would be a considerable improvement on the efforts so far in the Miliband era. Perhaps the polling might then shift a few points back in their direction.
Personally, I think this is possible, though my gut feeling is that they have lost so much credibility over these past few years that it is unlikely to last long, especially as it is nearly always easy to unpick Labour's claims – as we have seen so many times – so they are likely to be looking for a replacement slogan/line-to-take before very long...
Friday, 8 March 2013
New Lord Ashcroft Mega-Poll
With a sample size of some 20,022, Lord Ashcroft's latest commissioned poll is likely (though, strictly speaking, not guaranteed) to be closer to the real thinking in the country than the more typical polls of a thousand or so sampled.
The only figures I have from this mega-poll so far are for the "preferred outcome of the General Election in 2015". This comes out as 39% for a Labour overall majority and 30% for a Conservative overall majority. These are similar to the voting intention figures we have been seeing for quite some time now, so the two related-but-different sets of results seem to run somewhat in parallel.
The rest of the respondents apparently prefer a further coalition, but for some reason the two options of a Conservative-LibDem and a Labour-LibDem alternative have been lumped together. This brings them to 31%, which is a single point higher than the "Conservative majority" figure.
This Munton-esque sleight of hand appears, on the surface, to have been done that way purely to gereate that very fact. I have already seen my (so far) only source claim that a Conservative win is the "least preferred" outcome.
I am sure that the full poll when published will show separate figures for those two choices of coalitions, and indeed that will be very interesting to know anyway (if you think about it), rather than this seemingly manipulated combined percentage. After all, if coalitions are to be treated as mere variants within the same 'box' then surely so should majorities, to be consistent.
No doubt the full information will be made available in the next day or two, and perhaps someone such as Dr Anthony Wells will give an impartial assessment of what it all really means – unlike my only source on this so far, which has had an increasingly obvious and very specific anti-Conservative bias for quite some time now, and consequently can no longer be fully trusted. UPDATE 9 March: it's now here.
UPDATE @ Midnight on 8 March: Here is Lord Ashcroft's detailed discussion on the Liberal Democrats with regard to the mega-poll, as they go into their Spring Conference in Brighton this weekend. There are links to the full report and the data tables on the linked page, both of which I have downloaded and intend to study in some detail over the weekend.
The only figures I have from this mega-poll so far are for the "preferred outcome of the General Election in 2015". This comes out as 39% for a Labour overall majority and 30% for a Conservative overall majority. These are similar to the voting intention figures we have been seeing for quite some time now, so the two related-but-different sets of results seem to run somewhat in parallel.
The rest of the respondents apparently prefer a further coalition, but for some reason the two options of a Conservative-LibDem and a Labour-LibDem alternative have been lumped together. This brings them to 31%, which is a single point higher than the "Conservative majority" figure.
This Munton-esque sleight of hand appears, on the surface, to have been done that way purely to gereate that very fact. I have already seen my (so far) only source claim that a Conservative win is the "least preferred" outcome.
I am sure that the full poll when published will show separate figures for those two choices of coalitions, and indeed that will be very interesting to know anyway (if you think about it), rather than this seemingly manipulated combined percentage. After all, if coalitions are to be treated as mere variants within the same 'box' then surely so should majorities, to be consistent.
No doubt the full information will be made available in the next day or two, and perhaps someone such as Dr Anthony Wells will give an impartial assessment of what it all really means – unlike my only source on this so far, which has had an increasingly obvious and very specific anti-Conservative bias for quite some time now, and consequently can no longer be fully trusted. UPDATE 9 March: it's now here.
UPDATE @ Midnight on 8 March: Here is Lord Ashcroft's detailed discussion on the Liberal Democrats with regard to the mega-poll, as they go into their Spring Conference in Brighton this weekend. There are links to the full report and the data tables on the linked page, both of which I have downloaded and intend to study in some detail over the weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)