Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Political polling






they're all over the place. 4 Labour (smallish) leads, five now; four Tory (bigger ones) but ComRes haven't had a Labour lead all year, have dropped online polls now apparently, which mostly show Labour leads (consistent Tory leads by different pollsters are all phone polls)
also UKIP has been between 12 and 18% today..!? Survation had Tories ahead of Labour in North of England?!....many thinking Labour 29% with Tories down and Libdems up could be Red Libs going back, maybe tactically and regionally south-west.

and survation now have Farage up by 9% over Tories in South Thanet..
didn't Guardian have them third two days ago?
 
they're all over the place. 4 Labour (smallish) leads, five now; four Tory (bigger ones) but ComRes haven't had a Labour lead all year, have dropped online polls now apparently, which mostly show Labour leads (consistent Tory leads by different pollsters are all phone polls)
also UKIP has been between 12 and 18% today..!? Survation had Tories ahead of Labour in North of England?!....many thinking Labour 29% with Tories down and Libdems up could be Red Libs going back, maybe tactically and regionally south-west.

and survation now have Farage up by 9% over Tories in South Thanet..
didn't Guardian have them third two days ago?
Was only a week ago, or so, that someone was criticising the pollsters of 'herding' based on that Nate Silver shite.:D
 
Usual good sense from Anthony...

Looking at reactions on social media there are lots of people getting excited or dismayed by getting two Conservative four point leads in short succession. There is always a temptation to look for movement in the random variation of polls (especially when there has been so little genuine movement to get excited over!). However, there are four polls today – two Conservative leads, two Labour leads. The time to pay attention would be when the balance of the polls consistently starts showed one party or the other ahead, right now they still seem pretty evenly balanced.
 
The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp. My guess is that we end up with another hung parliament. Someone asked me yesterday what the politicians would do if nobody voted for anyone as a protest. The idea appeals to me. The idea that is of there being no government at all. Is it too late to organise a complete boycott of the General Election?
 
The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp.
Sorry that's utter nonsense, it doesn't even make any sense.

Polls attempt to measure the share of the vote each party will receive (well it's a bit more complicated than that because different polls are trying to measure slightly different things but it's close enough). And these days are really pretty accurate,

That's a separate thing to the models that predict the number of seats that each party will get, though many/most of those models use polling data as a input. These models do take into account the fact that we use FPTP, indeed even the most crude model, Uniform National Swing, is based on the fact that the UK uses the FPTP system. Sorry but you're simply talking rubbish.
 
The polls cannot be an accurate prediction of the election because they are based on proportional representation and the real elections are fptp. My guess is that we end up with another hung parliament. Someone asked me yesterday what the politicians would do if nobody voted for anyone as a protest. The idea appeals to me. The idea that is of there being no government at all. Is it too late to organise a complete boycott of the General Election?
Is there any political subject about which you don't not know anything?
 
I agree that the polls estimate the share of the vote that a party might be expected to get from a snapshot taken at a particular time in the electoral process. However people who go on to calculate the final election results based on this do not consider the effect of the voting system on the result.
 
Ashcroft has just released his latest batch of marginal polling...

BriUrbs might well be interested in this set:-



In Bristol North West, Charlotte Leslie is well ahead in the seat she won for the Conservatives in 2010 in a three-way fight with the Liberal Democrats. Elsewhere in the city, the Green Party has been heavily targeting Bristol West, a seat the Lib Dems won in 2010 with a 20-point majority over Labour. I found the Greens in second place with a 25% vote share, with more voters attracted from the Lib Dems than from any other party. This, combined with the fact nearly three in ten 2010 Lib Dems have switched straight to Labour, would be enough for Labour to take the seat with a swing of 19% if the result were repeated on 7 May.
 
Not surprised about the NW seat and reassured about West. Was a little worried the fucking Greens may let Williams back in
 
I really don't think you have.

For clarity, what exactly do you disagree with here?

So 321 it is then?

Having considered 326, 323, and 321...I see that, under their seat projection graphics, the Guardian has included this note....
If no party secures a majority, an alliance of more than 322 MPs could probably survive a confidence vote

:D
 
"More than 322" = at least 323, right?
Well, I'm sticking by 321 tbh, but clearly the Guardian think 323 is required to "secure a majority". I think I'll try to ask them how they've got to that figure, because if my assumptions about SF and 'Denison's rule' applying to all 4 speakers/deputies are correct, then 321 would suffice. This sort of stuff could become very important.
 
YG/Anthony's poll of polls graph for the year, so far...

staticgraph_zpszvzmnqtu.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom