Have the LDs been hurt by Clegg’s GQ admission?
April 6th, 2008
Was this behind the worst ICM ratings for three months?
This morning’s ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph is good news for the Conservatives, good news for Labour but bad news for the Lib Dems. These are the shares with comparisons on the last ICM survey just a fortnight ago - CON 43%(+1): LAB 32%(+3): LD 18%(-3). The comparisons in the previous post were with the last ICM survey in the paper in early January.
The pollster’s methodology is usually the most friendly to the Lib Dems of all the firms and has been the only one to rate them at 20% or more since Clegg came in. Today’s 18% is a blow and is the first time since in early January that the party has slipped back into the teens.
Of course this might just be one survey and poll watchers will be looking carefully at the April Populus survey in the Times which should be out on Tuesday. Last time the firm had the Lib Dems on 19% - will that, like ICM show a drop?
For the real damage from the “no more than 30 partners” admission is that it shows Clegg to be naive and perhaps a bit too ready to talk about things that most people regard as being private.
The following was in the New Statesman last October, when Clegg was fighting for the leadership and features comment by the shadow minister for culture, Ed Vaizey after spending six gruelling days with Clegg trekking to the Arctic: “Nick’s a lovely guy but he’s terribly vain. For the entire trip he harped on about how he was number one in a Sky poll of ‘Most Fanciable MPs’ and that I was only number nine. We shared an igloo and the intimate, bonding evening chat was based on how good-looking he is. I was referred to only by my fanciability ranking of number nine“
My guess is that the interviewer, Piers Morgan, was aware of Nick’s readiness to talk about these areas when he led the questioning in this direction?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
if so the Libs can relax as that will be temporary. If your theory is right it seems LD retreat now benefits Labour.
O/T - US Presidential [ sorry to be O/T so soon, but I’m on Aussie time:-) ]
A useful article highlighted on RCP, about the various VP possibles. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9394.html
Notable by her absence from the long list of possibles is Kathleen Sibelius, long-time favourite. Er….. ?
I thought I read somewhere that ‘Soft’LD’s tend to split about 6 to 4 to Lab over Cons somewhere ?
Perhaps one glass too many perhaps - Mike ?
I seem to remember that LD ratings went up after the revelations about Ashdown’s extra-marital affair, so maybe any public contempt for Clegg is of the ‘all mouth and no trousers’ or ‘too much information’ variety.
Polling averages are “flawed”?
Surely you don’t mean the eagerly awaited WIND from JackW’s ARSE?
re 5. Yes even the great JackW’s ARSE is flawed in so many ways.
Firstly all the polls ask different question in a different order.
Each of them has its own unique statistical methodology.
The fieldwork took place at different times.
Sample sizes are not uniform.
Some use the phone, one uses face to face interviews while Yougov is solely internet based.
I have observed here before that a polling average is like taking 100 pears, 100 apples, 100 oranges and 100 lemons, weighing them all and then dividing the number by 400 to produce the average weight of fruit.
Whether the LDs have been hurt or not is of little import. Mrs Clegg has been hurt - that is unforgiveable.
If this poll putting the Socialists 11 points behind is GOOD news for Liebour, I’d love to hear BAD news.
re 8. The “good news” reference was to the fact that this was an improvement on the last ICM poll.
But the previous poll had a different sample size and took place at a different time
5 Do keep up. Jack W posted it at 10.35 last night…
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of a new ARSE poll of polls that comprises ICM, Populus, YouGov, CR and MORI that gives :
Con 40.2% .. Lab 32.2% .. LibDem 17.8% .. Others 9.8%.
The PISSED Wells/Baxter Index with added SOAMES weighting shows :
Con 312 seats .. Lab 260 .. LibDem 46 .. Others 32.
Con 14 seats short of a majority.
……………………..
Sources :
WIND ….. Whimsical Independent News Division.
JNN …… Jacobite News Network.
ARSE ….. Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
by Jack W (No Finer Construct On PB) April 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
There was an item on the radio this morning that suggested that Huhne would have won the leadership election had ballot papers that were delayed by the Christmas post been included in the count. If true, or even if believed to be true, it will provide a permanant problem for Clegg as long as both he and Huhne are around in the House - which might only be to the next election. I wouldn’t see it as being critically undermining, but for a party that likes to be seen as the most democratic and makes such a play of ‘fair votes’, it does present something of a legitimacy issue.
On the subject of averaging polls, it is true that any errors in the original polls will be carried through to an average, but surely we have to work on the assumption that the various firms must be getting somewhere near the mark, otherwise they wouldn’t be believed or commissioned. At the least, it provides a benchmark to judge which companies tend to produce results favourable to one party or another, or to apparently to provide a multiplier bonus to the lead of whichever party is ahead.
While it might not be statistically sound to treat any rolling average as a poll in its own right, on a practical level, I don’t have a problem with it. Unless there is a one-way bias in all the systems used, then an average should get somewhere close to the mark, and if there is that overall bias, then individual polls don’t get over that problem either.
You could make a similar argument about the election result predictors: that each seat is different and so applying a uniform UNS (or UPS, or whatever), shift to the votes doesn’t take account of these factors, which is true, but we work on the basis that the local factors will generally cancel each other out. It should be much the same with poll averages.
The polling averages try to do a different thing - measure the actual level of support in the country. It is no more “flawed” than using the seat calculators - ie. basically flawed but the best we’ve got. If all you’re interested in the monthly changes then you might as well go back to using polls like Mori’s “all naming a party” (40 Lab 35 Con last month)
MTF @ 11. Thanks. Am more of a casual observer in recent months than I used to be. I don’t get to read every post any more. Hope to rectify that soon, once the work on my house is finished.
Isn’t the other problem with polling averages that they cover a span of time (often indeterminate - as in the venerable JackW’s ARSE), and so to use Mike’s analogy, they average out different ways of counting pears and apples, as well as averaging out apples that used to be pears.
14 5I was only pulling your leg..
When its an good poll like this I read every post, when its not so good, I am a little less interested…
Mike, how dare you criticise Jack’s ARSE? Even if you don’t believe that the output is appropriate for accurate analysis on this site, it’s only fair to allow those who enjoy following the trends to indulge themselves?
And this is high risk from Nick Clegg - it looks careless and llows people to think he can’t be trusted on sensitive issues. It also undermines some of David Laws’ in particular good work on speaking out on stable families. However it shows real honesty, makes him look distinctive and just as importantly gets him in the news. So I imagine the LDs will come out fine out of this.
Surely any politician is vain, otherwise they would not become politicians, giving voice to their views as if they were always right. Can argue that anyone who posts on this site expressing their views as if no others matter are also vain, whether they hide their true name or not, (me included).
I suspect Clegg has got a potential hurdle out of the way, just one lover coming out in the News of the World during the elction would create issues.
I am suprised one of these hasn’t been traced this weekend, I was expecting at least one on a tabloid front page.
Lib Dems are down because the Cons are more popular when that poll was done, just accept it. Polls change, look at the daily surveys in the States at the moment
I know you have to ‘make the site newsworthy’ but my own ‘take’ on all these polls going up and down by 3 or 4 per cent is that their true margin of error is much greater than they would like their clients (or the public) to believe.
Once again one of the more illuminating articles to read is on this site. Well done Mike.
Looking at the polling stats and using Mike’s apples vs apples rule, the average ICM poll for each Leader are as follows:
Nick 19.61 (8)
Ming 19.63 (38)
The poll before each Leader was elected was
Paddy = 12, Charlie = 16, Ming = 21, Nick = 21.
There is no sign of a Clegg bounce.
re 12. The postal voting story over the clegg election is, as far as I know, correct.
The problem was not that people got their ballots in late but that the closing date was in the week before Christmas. What tends to happen is that freepost and business reply envelopes get held-up because they have to processed for PO revenue purposes.
So a whole batch, certainly well in excess of Clegg’s majority, arrived on the morning of the count. Huhne wanted them included - Clegg didn’t.
It was a pretty dumb time to end the election anyway. Everybody was so pre-occupied by Christmas that Clegg’s accession did not get much attention.
They should have waited until the Tuesday before the first PMQs of 2008.
Given the closeness of the election unless you really believe there is some huge bias for late votes tobe for Huhne there would have had to be many thousands of late ballots to have a chance of overturning the 500 majority.
I’m sure Rod will do the statistics for you…
15 - But that has the advantage of smoothing out short term spikes in support (in addition to rogue polls)
I wish Clegg well, but I’m sorry it wasn’t Huhne!
Interesting comment from Hutton.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/06/transport.transport
An incoming Tory government, faced with an, ‘economic crisis’ could be forced down the same route as Heath, ‘No Lame Ducks’ then its, Rolls Royce Aero Engines, and a prices and incomes policy.
22. Going from memory now, I think they said about 1300 ballot papers were delayed in this way. The feeling at the time was that Huhne was polling a good deal better than Clegg in the late stages of the campaign. Enough to overturn the majority? Possibly, possibly not, but quite possibly enough to throw it open to doubt.
re 19 At this stage I don’t regard polls as predictors of the general election outcome but as a major element in affecting the political environment. So it’s it’s not just the polls themselves that matters but how they are reported and the impact they have.
A quick “thanks” to Peter the Punter for his tip of Comply or Die for the National. I was a few quid in pocket! Wonderful name incidentally!
Dave (s) - Distinguish between personal vanity, which I am sure is much more the prerogative of TV personalities, “celebrities” etc (about looks, and, heaven forbid, sexual attraction) and political vanity, where people are convinced others look to them for answers to public problems and issues. This, by the way, is not restricted to those involved in national politics - turn the pages of any local paper, and you will hear from many with this condition!
The big news of the day is obviously this.
http://tinyurl.com/4srvhl
I’m sure Mike will ban anyone, who puts a caption, to the second photograph down: what ever is happening to the, ‘Mail’ these days.
The small fall in LD support has nothing to do with Clegg’s off-centre boast about his previous sexual adventures.
Pb.com always discusses a topical reason for a difference in results from a poll to poll. Occasionally, it is justified (eg the fuel protests 4/5 years ago). Usually, it is irrelevant. And if not irrelevant then, it will be a month later.
There is an odd paradox about pb.com. The less you are on it, the more you get out of it.
The Independent article is labeling Huhne as the real Leader of the Lib Dems.
http://tinyurl.com/6cpmxv
That could cause internal strife for Clegg.
They must realise things are bad.. (OT)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3690033.ece
Hitch has a go at, ‘Dave’ over drugs.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
32
Hitch is virtually never worth the read,. I usually give up after the headline.
26 - Yes, but that’s a slightly different argument, and one could be deployed when arguing against the aggregating of polls even when they were all conducted (as in the past) under very similar conditions.
Leaving aside the argument about “polls as predictors”, one could also take issue with your stance on other grounds. It is relevant to ask which is more important - variations from one poll to another, or trends over time. Aggregating polls is a very good way of showing trends over time, and it doesn’t matter if some have flawed methodologies (as predictors), as long as they generally can be expected to move together with trends. The primary purpose of aggregating polls is not necessarily to provide one big accurate poll. It is to reduce the impact of rogue polls.
In fact, despite your words, you do this implicitly all the time when you right stuff like
“this poll, if accurate, is very good for Labour/Tories/LibDems. It will be interesting to see if this trend is confirmed by other pollsters“
21. This is an extraordinary story. The party of ‘fair votes’ effectively elected its leader via a gerrymander. Clegg has no legitimacy.
News links section - BORIS vs KEN vs BRIAN
I’ve just put together a new links section for the race in the right hand column. If anybody has ideas for other sites then please let me know.
politicalpunter@gmail.com
If i turn up to vote at 11pm on General Election day then my vote doesn’t deserve to be counted.
Morning all
Have enjoyed watching the snow this morning - puts a lot of other things into perspective.
I’m sure the Tory-inclined on here would love to ramp up a huge internal LD crisis but I’ve not met anyone in the party who is remotely interested in going down that road. Yes, the Huhne supporters think Chris would be doing a better job but that’s natural.
I don’t know Nick personally - I don’t know what he’s like. I don’t really give Ed Vaizey’s account much credit - Vaizey isn’t a political friend so an opportunity to put the boot in will be taken.
I think Nick is still finding his feet as leader. I suspect he and his inner circle are of the view that the LDs have to get a higher profile. Perhaps he is following Smithson’s law regarding Cameron.
One other thought - in many ways, the LD leader has to be less collegiate than the PM or Leader of the Opposition by which I mean given the limited amount of press coverage, the Party has to make sure everyone knows who the leader is so every media opportunity to get recognition for Clegg has to be taken.
My personal view is the drop in LD support represents a small rally for Labour since the Budget. In six months we’ll know if it’s anything more substantial than that.
37. False analogy. These votes were cast on time; only post office incompetence prevented them from being received on time.
38, I agree there isn’t an internal crisis for the Lib Dems. They can’t afford one, if nothing else.
However, looking at Clegg’s two most newsworthy moments (the Cleggover moment which is amusing, and the EU treachery which is not) they’re both signs of very poor judgement. Early days yet, so there’s plenty of time for a recovery, but if he continues in this vein he’ll end up making Brown look competent.
39 And one more reason why voting in person is to be preferred to postal voting whenever possible.
As a previous Huhne supporter I wouldn’t support a recount or rerun - all the ballot papers received on time were counted and counted correctly.
The rules is the rules; Huhne finished strongly but peaked too late (and could have made a brighter start to his campaign.) No advantage in stirring it up now - sounds like the other parties trying to make trouble more than anything else to me.
42. Surely the only reason this story has surfaced now is because Clegg is faltering so badly. I would rather point the finger at the Huhne camp…
39 - What, all 1300 of them? I’d be surprised.
33
read everything!! particularly the stuff you don’t wanna read.
29 Must say I agree with David Kendrick’s comment. I guess the most likely explanation for the ICM figures is regression to mean. ICM have been at the top end of the Lib Dem range for a while, now they slacken. But they are now quite likely to show an increase next month.
On averaging, I think they work. Mike does have a point I think though in that an average with two yougov polls in it is not the same as an average with just one. So perhaps Jack W could get off his backside and calcualte the average using the last poll from each pollster rather than the last five polls?
33
Perhaps you won’t want to read this?
seant’s comments would be worthwhile!!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/04/what-is-john-ma.html
The Lib Dem fall in the polls is probably much more to do with the increased coverage that Labour and the Conservatives are getting because of the elections and the coverage of recent polls than any comment he made to GQ. Having said that, they don’t seem to be having a great month and Paddick has not done anywhere near as well as I had expected.
Karl Rove comes to London?
40 - I agree; both Clegg News Meoments have been caused by bad judgement and, maybe as Hague found out, that sticks. It won’t cause an immediate problem but if this is part of a longer term trend then Clegg has real problems.
46 - that would be pointless. Com Res only do them every couple of months
45. Nothing you post or link to is ever worth reading.
45,33, 32 True and maybe Hitch has a point on this.
He certainly at the moment doesnt like New conservative or New/Tired Labour.
45
I do usually, but with the Hitch, its going to be a rant…
Re; 50 - Naturally, the Tory tactic since (and even before) Nick became Leader has been to denigrate him and that’s fair enough. Politics is often about playing the man rather than the ball.
As I said, Nick is finding his feet as leader. I don’t consider his start to be much different from that made by either Charles Kennedy or Paddy Ashdown and every leader makes gaffes (including Cameron).
I’ve also said before that luck plays a huge part in a politician’s journey.
I suspect Nick will turn this round though the “Calamity Clegg” title is one that will take longer to shift. I do think that a couple of years into a Cameron Government will be the next opportunity for the LDs as the Tories hit their own mix of bad luck and unfulfilled expectation.
32 - But why are you posting this, coldstone? What conclusions do you expect us to draw from this article?
That Hitchens is out of touch with the modern Conservative party? That Cameron is soft on drugs? That we should all get behind Boris for Mayor? Or something else?
I don’t think Clegg’s comments are the underlying reason for the LibDem showing or lack of progress.
My assessment is:
*Labour are performing much poorer under Brown than anybody in the Labour party expected
*People have softened their antipathy of the Tories but there is still no great enthusiasm for them
*The is no real reason for soft Lab or Con voters to switch to the LibDems at the moment. Previously, despair with Tory infighting or Iraq prompted significant movements - these are absent now.
Overall, I do know that significant numbers of local Labour party members are coming to the realisation that letting Brown have a clear run for the leadership has been a disaster. Several, fairly well placed, local people are muttering just how poor he has been.
[47] I never thought I’d be concerned by the thought of the Tories losing members - and to be fair to ConHome, they’re only speculating about it - bit if the main opposition party, riding high in the polls against an exhausted government, isn’t continuously having to reprint its membership application form, something is very wrong.
Still, perhaps Tory party members here would care to post their branch/constituency association membership figures, as they stand to-day and as they stood last year?
I see my ARSE has had a fine old airing this morning and may I say it never looks better than when its fully revealed to public scrutiny and exposure !!
On the apples, pears and oranges argument, I say long live fruit cocktail !! …. More, with a dash of SOAMES I’ve created a Pimms of a political service that brings a little summer sunshine into our proceedings and is 100% proof that getting a little PISSED is the ultimate winter warmer on a cold political morning !!
…………………………
ARSE ….. Anonymous Random Selection of Electors.
PISSED … Political Intelligence Seat Selector Election Determinator
SOAMES …System Of Amending Measured Election Scores
Why is this poll good news for Labour? OK, its not the absolutely dire 29% of the last ICM, buit 32% still means Labour is going nowhere.
Can’t see the “up to 30 lovers” thing doing much direct damage - there is ample evidence that people don’t vote according to their view of MPs’ sex lives. There is possible indirect damage, though - the perception that when “everyone” is worried about the economy, immigation, crime, whatever, the LibDems are busily gossipping about their sexual prowess. It’s not a fair portrayal at all - NC simply answered the questions put to him, and not in a boastful way - but the LDs are always suspected of being perpiheral to the main ‘who governs’ isuse, and this feeds that perception.
With my mathematician’s hat on, I agree with Mike that averaging polls, tempting though it is, obscures more than it enlightens. Every poll is itself an average, of curse, but calculated on the basis of carefully-weighted balances. To mix two or more of them makes the outcome more likely to be wrong despite the total sample being greater.
On a different subject, what effect do we think the widespread belief promoted by the tabloids that MPs are *all* crooks has on voting? It seems to me primarily likely to reduce any incumbency bonus (”always thought Fred was a decent bloke, but I suppose he’s looting the system too”) and depress turnout generally. It may vary by constituency too - the more flamboyant MPs will be probably more affected than, say, Dennis Skinner (who seems as financially austere as a Franciscan monk) or Oliver Letwin (who seems too modest to be buying Rols Royces from ill-gotten gains).
re 37. But it is very possible that many of the 1300 uncounted voted could have been posted up two weeks beforehand. That’s how Freepost works.
When the closeness of the result was apparent Clegg himself should have realised that the legitimacy of his victory could at some point have been challenged and called for the full count.
Failing that Rennard should have insisted on it - after all it was he who was responsible for the dumb timing of a postal ballot.
58
It would be far more intersting to see Labours membership figures. I suspect they have nosedived bigtime
re 60 Thanks Nick for your comments on poll averaging.
On your final para I have been meaning to write a post on that very subject. Could we get a reverse incumbency effect? I hope for your sake that it does not happen in Broxtowe - but in Bedord??
The Libdems have been hurt ever since Vince Cable decided not to contest the leadership.
He has been proved correct over the Northern Rock scandal,which will just run and run until Gord calls it a day.
Things are looking distinctly Rocky…
Economist: Northern Rock | What Lies Beneath
“The nationalised bank’s mortgage book looks less than healthy. Whereas many of its rivals were slowing their lending and looking for safer customers [in 2007], Northern Rock had put the accelerator down and was taking on ever-riskier clients. The value of loans on its books worth 95% or more of the property’s value almost doubled; indeed, those worth more than 100% quadrupled [including the infamous 125% “Together” mortgage]. Northern Rock’s rush to write risky mortgages also embraced the buy-to-let market. But the buy-to-let market may be especially vulnerable to a downturn. Estate agents reckon that many landlords are letting out properties at a loss and that the value of newly built flats is plummeting. More worrying still, NR’s repossession of homes is three times the average.”
56,Many Conservatives are out of touch with Cameron`s Conservatism.
Maybe Hitch speaks to them.
The perception to many will be that because of Camerons previous actions, regarding drugs, they are unsure what his position is.
However it will not go away completley, because there will always be speculation especially when he becomes PM.
There were always people who tried to get possible stories regarding Blair.
Hitchens is an extremist. If he ever had the ability to seize power (praise god he never will) this country would quickly become a dictatorship. In Hitchens world, anyone that disagrees with him seems to be evil and nasty and out to destroy the nation.
Moreover, he is become more and more desperate as his forecast for the last 10 years or more, of the imminant death of the Tory Party is quite clearly not going to come to fruition. His predictions are going to look incredibly silly come the next general election.
Many Conservatives are out of touch with Cameron`s Conservatism
Nothing like sweeping claims, unsupported by any evidence, to start the day.
Re: 61 - I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mike. I appreciate aspects of the ballot weren’t done well but we can’t keep raking this over. As with the infamous “hanging chads” in Florida, it shows the limitations of any democratic process.
We simply have to move on, Mike, but I do agree lessons need to be learnt and the process reviewed and improved.
Re: 64 - I’m as much a fan of Vince as anyone else but he had the far easier job of being a caretaker leader. He didn’t have the pressure or the expectation or the micro-analysis of every syllable that goes on at sites like this. He remains one of the party’s gratest assets and long may be continue to serve to illustrate just how lightweight his Conservative counterpart is.
56
I thought it was interesting, conclusions? draw your own.
52
The follow up, proves you wrong.
62
Labour has always found it difficult attracting members, and always lagged well behind the Conservatives. Labour at its peak, in the mid-fifties, had about 800,000 which looks impressive, until you compare it to the Tories 2.8 million!! What would any party give for figures like that today.
The political party, (as we know it) is in terminal decline, nothing can save it.
Meanwhile …. there is concern in the Smithson household that Mike’s excessive sampling of pollsters apples, pears and oranges has gone a little too far !!
http://www.bobbyworks.com/images/fat%20man%20at%20computer.jpg
69, I disagree with that.
I don’t think membership figures for any party will rise substantially in the near future, but they could later on.
The reason why they could and should increase is because of a return to ideological politics, where a political philsophy informs policy, rather than a policy being crafted to fit in with the Zeitgeist and headlines of tomorrow’s tabloids.
Because all three parties are largely crammed onto the centre ground it’s unsurprising membership is falling.
“With my mathematician’s hat on, I agree with Mike that averaging polls, tempting though it is, obscures more than it enlightens. Every poll is itself an average, of curse, but calculated on the basis of carefully-weighted balances. To mix two or more of them makes the outcome more likely to be wrong despite the total sample being greater.”
Any other mathematicians offer a second opinion on this? Seems dubious to me.
Re: 66 - It’s rare I agree with you, GIN, but this time you’re right.
Hitchens speaks to a minority - quite a large minority but still a minority - of what I would call the “fearful”. These are the people, who often live in suburban or rural areas, who think the cities are full of packs of feral teenagers and every other person is a freeloading immigrant. One might argue that they have been forcefed the Mail’s own propaganda and believe it to be true.
For them, Hitchens speaks the truth - politics died in November 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was ousted. They have a romanticised idyll of what England was like before “the blacks” came and when you could beat respect into children. England circa 1955 I would think.
Hitchens speaks to these frightened social conservatives who see their “world” faling around them (or so the Mail tells them).
In this view, Cameron is colluding with Brown to hand Britain over to the EU where criminals run free and liberalism is triumphant.
Anyone seen seanT this morning ?
Re: 73 - Agree with most of that. Morris, but just one thought. How many members fo these non-centre ground parties really have - how many in UKIP, BNP, Greens, Respect, English Dems etc ?
I suspect falling membership effects ALL parties.
69 - Do you really think that Hitchens would be speaking approvingly of Cameron if he adopted Boris’ stance?
72. Hitchens seems to dislike Thatcher as well. He thinks the worship of her is stupid and that she was part of the plot to destroy the nation. Infact, I’ve never read Hitchens say a good word about ANY politician. Even Churchill would be an enemy to Hitchems, due to his post war surrdender to leftist ideology of the welfare state, etc…
Meanwhile II …. For Clegg the atheist, it was Christmas wot wun it’ for him :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/meet-the-real-leader-of-the-liberal-democrats-805230.html
8
There are sadly no socialist parties in the UK. NuLabour is so close to the Tories in policy terms as to be statistically insignificant.
Cameron is younger than Brown and looks prettier on TV; that appears to be the main difference. As for the LDs, since the boy Clegg came on to the scene they have turned into the UK’s third Tory Party.
Malcolm
Re: 75 - It’s easy to just criticise any and every politician and being anti-politics is fine if you’re not accountable to anyone. Hitchens plays that role superbly.
Back in the real world, running a Council or the country isn’t easy and I do think at times people who are so dismissive of politicians ought to try it themselves for a month to see what it’s really like.
72. Your description of this vast army of KKK-style rural dwellers is as laughably cliched and inaccurate as are the views on city dwellers which you ascribe to them. The reality is that Hitchens speaks for a very small group of nutters, most of whom long ago decided to vote (if at all) for the BNP or UKIP.
Meanwhile III …. ‘The Independent on Sunday’ assesses the state of the Clinton campaign :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-campaign-on-the-skids-as-aide-is-forced-to-apologise-805257.html
78. Weirdly though, Hitchens doesn’t like the BNP or UKIP (for various reasons) Hitchens really is a one man band, that dreams that one day a party that reflects all of Peter Hitchens’s views and opinions will suddenly materialize as if by magic, and actually get into power, and because all of the main parties have died, it will stay in power forever and ever.
63: Reverse incumbency is a bit strong, I think, unless the style of the local MP feeds speculation - driving around in a Rolls, living in a gigantic house, etc. Your Bedford MP doesn’t strike me as that sort of chap. But it clearly isn’t good for incumbents. Constituents who know you generally give you the benefity of the doubt - MPs commonly report people saying to them, “It must be awful for you to work with all those crooks” and the like. But that’s the direct feedback from people who know the MP, and the reality in many constituencies is that at least half the voters would struggle to say who it is.
That said, the leaders of the anti-politician pack are the Tory tabloids, and the stories also feed the perception that it’s no good voting for anyone, which isn’t good for challengers either.
Re: 78 - Disagree entirely, Jeff. If the constituency was as small as you claim, the MoS wouldn’t give Hitchens a whole page. As for how Hithens’ readers vote, most are probably Tory followed by UKIP I would think.
Oh, re membership - I think Labour’s is now pretty static. We have a trickle in and a trickle out, but most people are just letting the direct debits carry them on. We had a boomlet when GB took over, but now a typical month is +2/-2, and those are mostly people moving in or out of the constituency.
71: I’m not a mathematician, but thinking about Mike’s example of taking 100 pears, 100 apples, 100 oranges and 100 lemons, weighing them all and then dividing the number by 400 to produce the average weight of fruit, I can think of plenty of times when that would give you some useful information. Botanists studying the effect of CO2 levels on fruit production, supermarkets trying to find out whether consumers are tending to buy bigger fruit…
If you’re looking for a snapshot of the general position at a given time and people have different methods that all make sense but come up with different results, you might well want to just aggregate them and take the average numbers - although if you’re confident that method x is better than method y then obviously you’d want to give it more weight.
Actually, the problem here is more when you’re watching what happens over time; If you got 100 of each fruit every month you’d get quite a good picture of the overall trend that would smooth out sampling error (Tories up 5%, Labour down 3% or whatever) but in fact people don’t poll at consistent, regular intervals, so some months you’ll get 50 apples and 150 lemons, and other months you’ll get 200 apples and no lemons at all. Hence the warning, when you’re comparing polls, to stick to comparing ones from the same pollsters.
Did`nt Hitchens follow kinnock allover in the 92 campaign and at a news conference one of Kinnock`s aides lost it.
Believe he supported Major in that campaign.
He does speak to people who hate the
85, contd Blair Cameron style of politics.
We seem to have lost some posts Mike ??
81. When it was announced that Boris would be fighting Ken for the mayoralty, the general consensus was that the contest would be great for turnout. Obviously, it’s too early to say that won’t be the case, but I rather suspect that it won’t.
The huge negative coverage that politicians have got in general plus the character heavy/ policy light coverage of the London elections, will make many people ambivalent about turning up to vote at all. It’s the ‘crook or the clown’ sentiment that will depress turnout. On balance , I think this is unfair to both Ken and Boris who have both now started to talk a lot about policy and to offer a real choice of direction. Whether it’s enough to increase turnout I don’t know.
84 - “Hence the warning, when you’re comparing polls, to stick to comparing ones from the same pollsters.”
Which of course goes without saying, and is Mike’s usual complaint, but as you acknowledge is not the same as aggregating. It is perhaps true (using your example again) that weighted aggregating should be treated with caution.
80. Quite true; Hitchens is very much an eccentric, individual voice. But the slavish way in which left wingers on this site latch on to his rantings is very instructive. He represents what many of them desperately want to believe they are fighting.
Ever since Cameron was elected, the left wingers on this site - especially among the Lib Dems - have been loudly predicting a mass exodus of support from this imaginary horde of right-wing extremists. Most laughable of all have been the widespread predictions of a UKIP surge.
Nothing of the sort has happened of course. Conservative people are small-c conservative as well. They rather like posh leaders, and are instinctively suspicious of loudmouth, demagogic figures - hence their loathing of Kinnock. Despite having right wing instincts on immigration and other topics, they are also sceptical of people offering ‘easy’, extreme solutions.
70 - Membership of all political parties has been falling since the method of collection came into force.
I can remember as a child my father in the 1960’s paying a shilling (5p) a week to a collector from the Labour Party - so 60p a year. I have no idea what it is now, but somewhere around 36 pounds and you have to pay it by post. We all know that if someone collects money on a regular basis, it is more difficult to say no, as you get to know the collector.
The Conservatives were the same, but collected annually. Back in the 1950’s I think it was 2/6 (12 1/2 p), then 5 shillings, then a pound. Ok, some paid more, but most paid the set amount. Today it is 25 pounds, again collected by post.
I have no idea about how the Lib Dems collected in the past, but I suspect it was not very different.
The Labour Party then started collecting subs direct from Newcastle and that took the local connection even further away from the personal contact on the doorstep.
The Conservatives sort of tried that with national membership, but seem to have given up and instead taps members of Constituency Parties a couple of times a year.
As all charities have realised you get more money by direct mail, than the charity street collections, which is why most charities wither no longer do street collections or just once or twice a year. The Poppy appeal being the odd one out.
All political parties had more members 50 years ago, but how many of them were active members. My father did nothing other than pay his sub each month and chat about football for 5 minutes.
Yes there was a social life for those that wanted it. Things have changed. Even television is better these days ! Just think of the huge number of working mens clubs that have closed down in the last few years.
As for membership drive. Who would go on a doorstep and ask for 25 or 36 pounds. Or more to the point, who would have that sort of money in spare cash. Most of the doorstep subscriptions were paid in cash, people would take the pound note or whatever from the pocket - it was like giving to a charity street collection.
I cannot see membership of poltiical parties increase by much. Certainly, I am sure that there is much potential out there to recruit members in safe Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative seats that currently have a low membership. But those who already have between 1000 and 2000 members will no, in my view, see any real increase.
One of the biggest problems that all political parties have suffered from are deaths ! Those people who have been members since the shilling days are now dying off and are not being replaced by the younger voters.
Have been shadowing this website for many months -sometimes with admiration for the political knowledge of the contributers,occasionally with annoyance at people like Roger whose comments make my blood boil.Anyway i have finally decided that i must respond briefly to Stodge’s comments at 72 wherein he refers to Britain circa 1955 before the blacks arrived.Yes for nostalgic reasons i preferred the country then to now because multicultruism/political correctness has destroyed this country especially since 1997.
90 “Conservative people are small-c conservative as well.They rather like posh leaders”
67″ nothing like sweeping claims, unsupported by any evidence to start the day”
Mike. I have difficulty with the references to some pollsters favouring one party,one another, as if it is in the nature of things. Hypothetical case- a pollster is known to favour one party, indicating a close run GE- the GE is a landslide for the other party- the pollster continues using the same bias after the election( Harris was cited re 1992) Surely this situation would lead to all pollsters reviewing assumptions, resulting in a general coming together of all polls- unless they were influenced politically by their clients? And this is not supposed to happen(perhaps I am being naive.)
Having just seen the very impressive brian paddick on sky news i wonder why boris doesnt offer him a leading role in the post ken administration. paddick is clearly a credible and sensible bloke who would bolster the boris campaign and ensure the odious ken is defeated.
Nick Palmer for two years the Labour party line has been that all parties and politicians are the same. How often have you or your colleagues said ‘if the Tories were in government they would do the same’. Or have attempted to highlight Tory transgressions as mitigation of your party’s faults.
Blaming the Tory press for having swallowed this line is hypocritical.
95. Tigger I rather liked his line when asked about the “Cleggover” business - words to the effect of “I’ve slept with fewer women than Nick Clegg”. Boom boom.
92. Well try having a look at the polls Dez. I know you and your friends desperately want to believe the world reflects your own distorted prejudices, in which most Tory voters are closet BNP supporters and the public at large hate ‘Toffs’, but these views simply have no basis in any of the available evidence.
96 yes that was very funny. do you not think that as an ex senior copper he would add a great deal to the boris administration and effectively kill off any chances the disgrace that is ken would have?
71,84. Mathematically speaking, Nick Palmer is correct.
If the only error were random error, then averaging would reduce error by increasing the sample size. But, the problem is that there are different systematic errors, as the selection effects from each pollster are different.
Suppose pollster A has a reliable method and pollster B has unreliable method. Averaging A’s results with B’s contaminates the sample with B’s dirty data and so gives poorer results.
I have also found Nick’s mathematics to be sound — he should have stuck to it.
I’m sure that if Brian Paddick had wanted to serve under Boris he wouldn’t be standing as the Lib Dem candidate!
[88] Dunno what these policy differences are between Boris and Ken.
98. Not sure, but flying that kite this side of the election would surely be a no-no for both Boris and Brian (but for different reasons obviously).
Observer main story -”Controversial plans for pupils in comprehensive schools to sign up for military drills and weapons training are being backed by Gordon Brown in an attempt to improve the relationship between the public and the armed forces”
Perhaps the introduction of the swastika was just a few months early.
84 “… you might well want to just aggregate them and take the average numbers - although if you’re confident that method x is better than method y then obviously you’d want to give it more weight.”
But, I suppose the problem is that there is no algorithm for assigning the weights, so you would end up basically guessing them. In which you case, you might as well guess the end result!
100 understand but it would sort out second preference votes and ensure a boris/paddick victory. paddick is just a celebrity (!) candidate and could add a great deal to the running of london.
re 93. one reason that ICM tends to produce better Lib Dem shares is in the wording of its questions. ICM put it this way “The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other parties would fight a new election in your area. If there were a general election tomorrow which party do you think you would vote for?”
MORI put it simply “How would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?
The COMRES question is “If there were a general election tomorrow, would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or some other party?”
Populus ask “If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?”
I very much prefer the two stage ICM approach
99% of those polled would have never heard of that magazine interview. Most people don’t spend much time thinking about politics or reading about it.
84, 103 Edmund in Tokyo.
I’m coming round to your point-of-view!
Maybe you can determine the weights empirically, if there is enough historical data to compare with true election results and if the polling methodologies and questions from the different organisations have remained stable over that time.
(Probably doesn’t apply to the case in hand, though).
105.
Mike Do they always mention the Conservatives first or do they move them round ?
On the main topic, I don’t think anyone’s noticed.
The most damaging story is of course the one that shows Clegg should not now be the leader and that he didn’t win the majority of votes, Huhne did.
You can’t override the democratic system in such a way without losing a moral rectitude. If lib dems can’t propose, and embody, the fairness of democracy then what’s the point?
68 - Stodge, the problem with chalking it up to experience is that, to voters like me, Clegg stole the election and so now does not have my support as leader of the party that I wish to vote for.
Righting a wrong later would be too late for some MPs in their wish to retain their seats (or candidates to win them).
Mike 105.Thank you for your comments.My question(badly put) was more about honest(?) pollsters correcting their methodology after the main event (usually a GE but perhaps even May 1st)shows it to be flawed.Harris was apparently the only pollster to call 1992 correctly,so what did the others do about it? Apparently very little.
105. To me, MORI/Populus seem like “fairer” questions, as they are 100% genuine, no-added sugar, the pure unloaded question - “who will you vote for?”
However, opinion polls are about accurately predicting an election result (not asking neutral questions!) so I have to put my purism away for the sake of accuracy!
Quick question which may have been answred elsewhere but I have scanned briefly through the threads and not seen it.
Am I missing something (entirely likely) or are there 2 different numbers being quoted for the Conservative increase in the same poll here.
The previous thread followed the Telegraph headline and had the Tory lead up 6 points on the last ICM poll in January. But this thread has the Tory lead actualy down 1 point (Tories +1 and Labour +2)
Sorry if I am being thick but I am confused.
100. No, not many people do because the press aren’t reporting them. There are big differences though on affordable housing, buses, open spaces, green belt, airports etc. However, why bother taking the time and effort to report on those when you can just talk about a youtube video of someone singing about Boris?
Sorry, that should have read Tory lead down by 2 (Tories +1 and Labour +3)
79. good to see that odious mark penn in a bit of trouble
Okay, just reread it all properly and saw what I missed about the comparison with 2 weeks ago. Sorry folks.
113. Ah it’s all the fault of ‘the press’ again. These constant bleatings are as sure a signal as any that Labour are heading rapidly back into opposition - mentally they are there already.
99 - I don’t think that argument is valid unless you know which pollsters are reliable in advance.
118 (con) - bear in mind that the context in which Mike makes his complaint is one where he is only interested in looking at movements, and not so much at absolute %s of support (because “polls aren’t predictors”). As a said above aggregating polls to assess movements is fully justified, as long as you can be reasonably sure that the trends across the pollsters will be consistent, because it will filter out rogues and very short term movements in support.
113 - Why do you have a username which is a lie? With posters like Yellow Peril you know they are being ironic but yours is so sloppily constructed it makes you into an outright liar. Presumably you know that the phrase ‘Tory troll’ is an attempt to con people into thinking you are a tory supporter, otherwise it wouldn’t be announced by use of the definite article.
If you want to be taken seriously (which you may well not want to be) then change your name to ‘Trolling the tories’ or some such. At the moment you are just someone to be passed over, if you can’t tell the truth in your name then what you post is taken as equally worthless.
117.My original point was that the commentary that there is ‘nothing between them’ is unfair on both Boris and Ken. Coverage of the race in the papers has been mostly superficial with a warring of press release rehashes on both sides. I wasn’t saying this is worse for Labour or for the Conservatives, just that it makes people apathetic about the whole contest and that turnout may therefore be low.
120. Calling people you don’t know ‘outright liars’ doesn’t inspire much confidence either.
Believe me. I have no desire to be thought of as a Tory.
Last year, during their leadership, crisis I took serious flak from various Lib Dem supporters for suggesting that it didn’t matter who their leader was, it’s the policies that needed attention.
I think a total flatline in the polls having tried out no less than three leaders since the last election is proof that the leadership is not the problem.
Until the Lib Dems find a new cause they are destined to drift sideways. Relying on picking up people voting against the Tories is just not going to work in 2010.
120. Not fair. Yellow peril, aka Scallywag, Commentatore and about 1000 other names, comes on this site with a new name, often multiples, per day, for his posts so that he can’t be tagged with disapproval. TTT sticks to his. Yes, a silly handle but he will take criticism (like yours) when dished out. Scallywag hasn’t got the guts. To my mind he gets credit for being identifiable, at least.
97, What available evidence ?
It is yourself what believes in the distorted prejudices of others.
Where is the evidence that people rather like posh leaders that you quote.
More likley the polls reflect a tired government,and are considering a management change, rather than any outdated ideology you hold.
122 - Then why do you use a name which is a lie?
If you lie in your username then you are a liar, pure and simple, at first I couldn’t work out why a supposed tory was always attacking the tories. The reason became clear is that you deliberately lie in your username to try and con people.
I’d say the same for anone calling themselves, labour or lib dem troll or whatever.
It’s the same warped psychology as the idiots who change names. It seems you are a journalist, however, so maybe lying is just second nature to you. If you aren’t a liar then you’d have a more truthful username.
Morus and Socrates:
How about Mark Warner?
Pros:
He’s from the key white male demographic, he has gubernatorial experience, and seems to have a good record of economic competence. He’s southern as well and has a history of working with Republicans.
Cons:
Running for senate and could get a step closer towards the magic 60 seats. Adds nothing to Obama on National security (but a large bonus to the economy).
126. When i first came onto the site, i mistook you for a UKIP supporter because of your handle.
Gwynfa@99,107
“Maybe you can determine the weights empirically, if there is enough historical data to compare with true election results and if the polling methodologies and questions from the different organisations have remained stable over that time.”
Right - and informally we do this all the time. For example, people who have been following the US primaries would tend to ignore or under-weight ARG and over-weight SUSA.
BTW even imagining the case you mention at 99 with one good pollster and one duff one and assuming you have no idea which ones are which, using an average will work out better _half_ the time than just picking one… The crappy polls from B will contaminate the good poll from A, but in the same way the good poll from A will mitigate the crappy one from B.
Obviously aggregating the thing with well-informed weightings will give you better results than just totting up numbers and averaging them. And mixing in all kinds of other well-informed conjecture - things like “this week the Wright affair may have freaked out white voters but they may be afraid of seeming racist to the pollster, so I believe his robo-polled Rasmussen score over the human-polled Gallup one” will work even better. But totting up numbers and averaging them still gives you a useful number - better than nothing, and also better than picking a poll at random and ignoring all the others.
124 - He’s on the same, low level, as the name switchers, if one rung higher. What’s the point in keeping the same name other than it being a deliberate attempt to con those who are reading it? Politicians and journalists, may not understand this of course.
You did, of course, make your own name change far too transparent for it to be anything other than obvious.
124. Goodness you seem to be obsessed, now. Calm down luv, it’s only a website.
128 - UK does happen to be our country and doesn’t belong solely to the fringe nutters of UKIP.
Tory on the other hand is quite specifically in the UK (country again) restricted to meaning the Conservative Party.
128 - There’s a missing ‘i’ in there! The name is one I use on American forums, hence the UK reference.
124. Goodness you seem to be obsessed, now. Calm down luvvie, it’s only a website.
128. That suggest illiteracy, or at best dyslexia. Not an intention to deceive.
126. I’m not quite sure why I’m bothering to explain myself to somebody who is being so abusive to me but here goes.
The original intention was along the lines of trolling the tories or some such name, but I started off with this name and I’m stuck with it now. It is the only one I use and as Test says people who come on here a lot know my views. It was never intended to trick anybody, it was just an ironic playful name thought up in a few minutes that has stuck. If I was starting again I would choose another one but there you go. A least people can have some comeback on the things that I say.
130. No matter what name Mrs. Test used, it would be obvious who was writing the posts. The shrill and pompous tone, and the incredibly simplistic world-view, would be unmistakable.
The new James Hewitt. Total cad. Gentlemen don’t count, let alone divulge. I imagine he’s nailing five new chicks a week and needs a good cover story.
130 see Scally again at 133? I switched, once, out of worry for anonymity, but always had a recognisable and stuck-to handle; and as soon as somebody said were you X I said yes. So only a wish to be more anon, not to deceive or flee from criticism as YP/Scally does.
I agree with you that TTT is an annoying hanle however, but as long as he’s got the guts to stick to one it’s a million times better than the coward who won’t.
134 - Well, if you don&#