Political polling

[butchersapron]

I would say it's nearer 30%.

Would you say it wantonly?

 

[Fez909]

If, given taffboys form, he says 'wantonly misinformed' rather than just misinformed - or wrong - that this suggests an element of immorality, of self-directed excess, of being spoilt - and so that he actually goes far far beyond the limited assertion that you make?

It depends on his use of the word, I suppose. I took "misinformed" to be a verb rather than an adjective. You seem to be saying the opposite. Depending on which he meant, the meaning would change. If he meant it as a verb then yes, I'd say the media acted wantonly. If an adjective then it's dodgy, given you say he has form.

It looks like a verb to me, though.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't understand verbs and adjectives - but the wantonly was pretty obviously attached to the respondents not the media:

But it can be about being wantonly misinformed via right wing and establishment media

 

[Fez909]

I don't understand verbs and adjectives - but the wantonly was pretty obviously attached to the respondents not the media:

But it can be about being wantonly misinformed via right wing and establishment media

Well, it seems I don't understand them either because I just looked it up and I might be talking about adverbs.

Anyway, I disagree that it was obviously attached to the respondents and that's why I disagree with you about what he meant. But we can't know unless he clarifies, and you've answered my initial question about why it was seen as offensive, so let's leave it?

Thanks.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, no worries, thread doesn't need this stuff.

 

[Teaboy]

Thought i might just put this here as it's a small story and one related to polling-ish but not worthy of a thread on its own. Zac Goldsmith has said he will resign and force a by-election if a third heathrow runway is adopted. The final recommendations of the Airports Commission (i.e not even the decision) is due summer 2015. Date of next general election: spring 2015. He's in a marginal. That said, it's a marginal with the lib-dems so i think he may be worrying unduly. He's effectively negating their opposition. Canny cynical politics at its best.

Hmmm, perhaps, but I think there might be more to it than that. This is my constituency and to say the third runway is a big issue locally is to underplay it massively. I actually don't discount Goldsmith's sincerity on this issue, he comes from the borough and still lives here, he's also not afraid of voting against the government and lost his brief pretty quickly as a result.

I personally think he is right to be worried, perhaps surprisingly the lib dems are not buried here (remember we are next door to Cable's seat in Twickenham) and it would be hard to see a tory MP of any stripe getting elected if a tory government gave a green light to Heathrow expansion. Of course any decision is not being made until after the next election by design of the government as Heathrow expansion is a pain in the arse for them as it could cost them 2-3 seats. I have no doubt that goldsmith would resign tomorrow if expansion was authorised what I don't know is what his next move would be but my guess would be stand as an independent which I believe he would have good chance of winning, he's never appeared to be to wedded to the tories anyway.

As it happens I suspect he may stand down at the next election anyway, he seems pretty disillusioned already plus we have the womble-like figure of Johnson hanging around here like a bad smell, although he may not like the small majority of this seat.

 

[butchersapron]

I was going to say that if there are pockets where lib-dem vote will stand up it might well be here - but then it seems pretty dependent on labour tactical voting for its past victories there, something that may not happen this time around. I think there may well then be a happy meeting of personal beliefs and good politics in this case. As for standing as an independent, i think he's need to win next time then stand down and kick up a huge fuss. In a GE he'll be squeezed i think - the lib-dem would love him to go down that road.

 

[kabbes]

Lib Dem support has stood up in my heavily-Tory area too. With respect to Westminster, it's an ultra-safe Tory seat (50%+), but the LibDems have polled around about the 30% mark in recent years in general elections, and they hold many of the council seats. This doesn't seem to be changing.

Informal political chats with friends and neighbours would suggest that this is because these LibDem voters have always been Yellow Tories in any case, so don't feel so betrayed by the coalition. They are basically fiscally Conservatives with socially liberal consciences. They don't like the Tories for various reasons, but they don't like Labour either and they view the coalition as pragmatic politicking.

 

[Teaboy]

I was going to say that if there are pockets where lib-dem vote will stand up it might well be here - but then it seems pretty dependent on labour tactical voting for its past victories there, something that may not happen this time around. I think there may well then be a happy meeting of personal beliefs and good politics in this case. As for standing as an independent, i think he's need to win next time then stand down and kick up a huge fuss. In a GE he'll be squeezed i think - the lib-dem would love him to go down that road.

Yes, I'd say that seems spot on, I don't think he'll stand as an independent in a GE. As I say I have a suspicion he may yet stand down at the next election anyway but failing that a resignation shortly after expansion is authorised in 2015 and stand in the by-election is very possible.

The whole Heathrow issue is one to watch, when you look at the constituencies surrounding the airport and understand how much local opposition there is you can believe the tories must be really sweating on this. Can they afford to lose theses seats?

 

[Santino]

Lib Dem support has stood up in my heavily-Tory area too. With respect to Westminster, it's an ultra-safe Tory seat (50%+), but the LibDems have polled around about the 30% mark in recent years in general elections, and they hold many of the council seats. This doesn't seem to be changing.

Informal political chats with friends and neighbours would suggest that this is because these LibDem voters have always been Yellow Tories in any case, so don't feel so betrayed by the coalition. They are basically fiscally Conservatives with socially liberal consciences. They don't like the Tories for various reasons, but they don't like Labour either and they view the coalition as pragmatic politicking.

'They'

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

He's saying that the general population are 'wantonly misinformed' via the media - it doesn't matter to that point who he thinks is making them 'wantonly uniformed' - it does matter that what he sees is a seething mass of people who can easily be 'wantonly misinformed' - that's the giveaway, esp when placed next to his long record of stuff like this. And that then has to placed next to other readings of the results and what the particular spin he decided to put on them reveals about where he's coming from.

To be clear, I was saying that the media wantonly misinform people. I used the word "wanton", because it's not just a matter of disinformation but it's highly deliberate and orchestrated. It's not a matter of seeing them as a mass, but it is a matter of weighing up the evidence. it's no good supposing I must hate people or see them as a controllable mass for thinking disinfo works when the evidence is that disinfo actually does work. We've come along way since Bernays. Polling has shown the average person thinks nearly a 1/4 of people are muslim. Mass or not, that's a lot of very misinformed people, and way more important than what you think of what I think, or your constant silly attempts to read my mind.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Totally agree about Goldsmith he doesn't need the salary and is genuinely committed to the no third runway campaign even down to being mates with the organisers

 

[brogdale]

Here we go.

Tories in serious trouble.

(YouGov) Anthony's observations on the Brown funded polling for UKIP...

"....here is another batch of UKIP donor Alan Bown’s Survation constituency polls, showing high levels of UKIP support in most of the seats selected – even compared to Survation’s national polls, which tend to show the highest levels of UKIP support to begin with. All four constituencies surveyed have much higher Con=>Lab swings than national polls imply, to a extent that looks somewhat doubtful to me. Swings at general elections aren’t uniform… but it’s a fair guide, parties perform a little better in one seat, a little worse in another seat, but if you’ve got a series of polls showing swings that are *all* substantially better than the national average, almost regardless of marginality, who holds the seat, etc, something’s not right. Somewhere or other they need to average out.

These seats where presumably selected as ones where they thought UKIP were doing particularly well, so perhaps that’s the reason – where UKIP are doing particularly well it results in a bigger swing (in which case they would by definition not be typical of other seats – so do be careful of extrapolation) but I’m dubious about constituency polling so far from the national picture, especially without political weighting. We shall see.

The most interesting thing I actually found there was the difference between the increase in the UKIP vote in the three coastal towns polled (up 23, 20 and 25 points) and in Crewe and Nantwich where it was up only 8. Now, leaving aside the prompting and the weighting and whether it’s a good measure of the actual level of UKIP support, all four were done on the same basis so should be comparable to each other. One interesting question about UKIP support at the next election is how uniform it will be – UKIP got comparative few council seats in 2013 for the level of support they achieved because it was spread so evenly, they just ended up coming second a lot. If their support in 2015 is the same they would struggle to translate support into any actual MPs. In terms of winning seats it’s much better to have areas of strength and weakness. Seaside towns were some of their better areas in the 2013 locals, and the contrast here between Crewe & Nantwich and the seaside towns suggests their support may be clumpier than thought… but again, don’t read too many conclusions into that single poll."

 

[butchersapron]

if you’ve got a series of polls showing swings that are *all* substantially better than the national average, almost regardless of marginality, who holds the seat, etc, something’s not right. Somewhere or other they need to average out.

What an odd thing to say. So at what temporal or spatial
junction
does being right feel
so wrong

(cheers brogdale btw)

 

[brogdale]

What an odd thing to say. So at what temporal or spatial
junction
does being right feel
so wrong

(cheers brogdale btw)

Particularly when the UKIP funded polling's higher than national Con->Lab swings are consistent with the higher than national swings identified by Ashcroft's marginal polling in September. And let's not forget, Ashcroft's £ allows for very large polling samples:-

What’s hugely impressive is the scale and his adoption very often of the most resource hungry method for getting data. His September marginals polling, for instance, involved talking by phone to a sample size of 12,800 – a massive undersaking. To put this into context this is more than the aggregate samples that the Guardian/ICM polls as well as the Ipsos-MORI Political Monitors have in an entire year.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...-political-pollster-of-the-yearlord-ashcroft/

 

[butchersapron]

Unless the weekend polling produces a shock 2013 be the first year since 2002 that the Tories didn’t record a lead in any opinion poll

 

[brogdale]

Unless the weekend polling produces a shock 2013 be the first year since 2002 that the Tories didn’t record a lead in any opinion poll

It is worth noting that even in the worst days for the Thatcher and Major governments the party recorded leads in 1991, 1995 and 1990 which were at the same stage before the following general elections.

...but then in those days the right-wing vote was not split.

 

[brogdale]

Today's polls...

YouGov’s daily poll for the Sun this morning had topline figures of:-

CON 34%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%.

The five point Labour lead is pretty typical of what YouGov have been showing over the last fortnight. The full tabs are here.

Meanwhile Populus’s twice-weekly poll has topline figures of:-

CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 8%.

Full tabs are here.

 

[brogdale]

Last one for the year?

The final YouGov poll of the year is up here. Voting intentions are:-

CON 34%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 11%.

The six point Labour lead is the same as the average in YouGov’s polls across December, in comparison in December 2012 YouGov was showing an average Labour lead of eleven points, so year-on-year Labour’s lead has almost halved – the YouGov average for December 2013 is Conservative 33% (up 1 since 2012), Labour 39% (down 4), Lib Dem 9% (down 1), UKIP 12% (up 3).

Labour leads have seemed a tad lower since the Autumn statement, but the vast majority that narrowing came in the early part of 2013 when economic optimism first stating picking up. We can see the changes in attitudes to the economy in the other regular YouGov trackers here. 17% now think the economy is doing well, 50% badly. It’s still strongly negative, but compare it to December 2012 when it was 5% well, 73% badly. 41% of people now think the coalition are managing the economy well, 51% badly – it’s still a net negative, but compare it to December 2012 when it was 31% well, 59% badly.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8571

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Seems like the best thread for this

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/local-council-by-election-results-2013.html

 

[where to]

Seems like the best thread for this

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/local-council-by-election-results-2013.html

some observations:

• UKIP were able to stand just 5 fewer candidates than the LibDems
• the Lib Dems got a pitiful 11.8%, not much more their national polling figures - incumbency/ local factors will not beenough for their incumbect candidates in 2015
• the UKIP vote was as per much national election polling in 2013
• TUSC got more local council votes in 2013 than the BNP.

 

[brogdale]

I'm liking the rage and the 47% who are angry.

Nearly half of Britons say they are angry with politics and politicians, according to a Guardian/ICM poll analysing the disconnect between British people and their democracy.

The research, which explores the reasons behind the precipitous drop in voter turnout – particularly among under-30s – finds that it is anger with the political class and broken promises made by high-profile figures that most rile voters, rather than boredom with Westminster.

Asked for the single word best describing "how or what you instinctively feel" about politics and politicians in general, 47% of respondents answered "angry", against 25% who said they were chiefly "bored".

Negative sentiments vastly outnumber positive, with only 16% reporting feeling "respectful" towards people doing a difficult job, while a vanishingly small proportion of 2% claim to feel "inspired".

Rage is the dominant sentiment across just about every sub-stratum of the electorate, but is especially marked among men, northerners, voters over 45 and the lower DE occupational grade.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/26/fury-mps-not-voting-poll

 

[William of Walworth]

Just read that piece, and like you I've no problem with people being angry at established politics and politicians. But I don't think either the article, or the bits of the data it quotes, adds up to much that's useful/informative.

I didn't really pick up much about the methodology and question-wording of that poll.

Plenty about what people are angry at, not so much at all about which issues they're angry about, and why.

 

[brogdale]

Just read that piece, and like you I've no problem with people being angry at established politics and politicians. But I don't think either the article, or the bits of the data it quotes, adds up to much that's useful/informative.

I didn't really pick up much about the methodology and question-wording of that poll.

Plenty about what people are angry at, not so much at all about which issues they're angry about, and why.

Agreed....but we are reading copy to fill up page space on the 26th Dec. tbf....

 

[brogdale]

Annual summary from Anthony @YouGov....

...which includes these graphics...

Worth a look, I think.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Annual summary from Anthony @YouGov....

...which includes these graphics...

Worth a look, I think.

From the same website, an interesting inverse relationship between people's concerns with immigration and the economy. Seems to add weight to the idea that immigration issues are useful in taking our attention away from economic hardship.

 

[butchersapron]

Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.

edit: available from here.

 

[brogdale]

Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.

edit: available from here.

Very large sample size, again...those numbers look pretty fucking disastrous for the tories. HNY dave.

 

[frogwoman]

To be honest doesn't actually surprise me because there is a decrease in unemployment (although an increase in people forced into shit part-time and temp work) so the economy nay superficially look like it's getting better, at least to the people answering these polls. Numbers look hopeless for the Tories though, I reckon we'll get another hung parliament next election and this time lib dems support will be decimated.

 

[frogwoman]

Ashcroft megapoll just published. Headline figure is lab 39, con 30, UKIP 16, LD 8. More when full data is posted i expect.

edit: available from here.

Two thirds of Tory joiners supported the lib dems