Thread: UK PM to call election for 6 May

D minus 29
Tonight’s polls:
Angus Reid/Political Betting (6th Apr-7th Apr) CON 37%(-1), LAB 26%(-1), LDEM 22%(+2)
YouGov/Sun (6th Apr-7th Apr) CON 37%(-3), LAB 32%(nc), LDEM 19%(+2)
Populus/Times (6th Apr-7th Apr) CON 39%(-1), LAB 32%(+2), LDEM 21%(+1)

Conservatives off a couple of point.

Labour steady or growing.

LD definitely moving upward.

"other' HUGE spike.

If you look at Angus Reid I'm seeing almost fourteen percent.

Prediction...hung

Conservatives short by 21 seats.

russell, you have the benefit of not having to give a shit about this nonsense...

There is an element of the political scientist in me Hales.

Always has been.

Because the British parliamentary system is so close to the Canadian system it makes it more enjoyable than trying to follow say, the American electoral system, where there are huge differences.

Hope that's okay.

Seriously, I'm genuinely interested .

I hear what you're saying, but no ill intent on my part.

My intention is simply to keep abreast of the campaign and make a few inoffensive comments.

I probably won't even take any side.

---Update---

The British elections are the second most important elections in the democratic world.

I guess I still belive that conventional politics can and will make a difference.

Hope springs eternal.

you misunderstood mate, wasn't a criticism, just joking around...

(hence the little chuckling smiley)

Originally Posted by russellsimpson

There is an element of the political scientist in me Hales.

then considering looking elsewhere, not much genuine politics going on here...just branding, public relations and media spin.

UK Polling Report

This is a little more specific in terms of comments and updates.

---Update---

Originally Posted by Mr. Hales

then considering looking elsewhere, not much genuine politics going on here...just branding, public relations and media spin.

I don't disagree with that Hales.

Anyway here's what I would consider a decent comment on things we might want to consider when looking at the polls these days for those interested in the phenomenon.

And there will be a lot of polls and a lot of slicing and dicing. (And of course it isn't going to be my intention to post very much of it which I know will be greeted by some as a relief).

Worth a read IMO

<H1>John Curtice: Don't believe all you read in the polls

</EM>
Our writer tries to reconcile the conflicting indicators


Wednesday, 7 April 2010

• Such divergence should not surprise us. Even perfectly conducted polls of 1,000 people or so will vary one from another simply by chance. This is particularly true of the lead, which depends on getting not one figure right but two. Any two polls might be as much as 10 points apart without anything being necessarily amiss.

Since the debâcle of 1992, when the polls suggested Labour was a point ahead but the Conservatives won by eight points, pollsters have had to come to terms with the fact that the samples of people they manage to interview are rarely representative politically of those who eventually make it to the polling station. Rather, they typically exhibit a pro-Labour bias.
This problem is most obvious in the polls of the four established pollsters who conduct their polls by phone: ComRes, ICM, MORI and Populus. When they ask their respondents how they voted last time they typically find a higher proportion saying they voted Labour than actually did so. A phone pollster may have to make as many as 12 phone calls to secure one interview, and Labour voters are apparently more likely to pick up the phone and co-operate.
To counteract this, all phone pollsters other than MORI weight their data slightly in favour of the Conservatives. But they also have to bear in mind that some people may misremember how they voted last time.
Perhaps fewer people answering a poll actually voted Labour last time than say they did. In that case reducing the weight of past Labour voters would actually introduce error. The pollsters make allowance for this possibility. MORI, however, feels that it is too risky to weight the data at all.
Polling using the internet, as pioneered by YouGov, is a more radical solution. YouGov do not (because they cannot) contact people at random. Rather they rely on recruiting people into a panel of those willing to complete the company's polls.
Respondents are unlikely to be representative. But when people sign up to the panel, they are asked which party they usually support as well as how they voted last time. This relies rather less on people's memories.
YouGov aim to use this information to ensure they approach a politically representative sample in the first place. But as nobody can be sure exactly how many people in the population "usually" support each party, there is still room for uncertainty.
Pollsters must also anticipate who will actually vote and who might be particularly reluctant to declare their intentions. They do not all agree on how best to deal with these problems either. Polling nowadays is an uncertain art – so do not be surprised if there is the occasional disagreement.
John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University. He will be analysing the opinion polls throughout the campaign for 'The Independent'

</H1>

There's the article.

Now this below I actually find very hard to believe..

But they also have to bear in mind that some people may misremember how they voted last time.

Hard to believe that anyone would forget who they supported party wise last time around.

At least hard for me to imagine

^ Could've been drunk!!!

I've actually 'heard' that polls can effect actual results (or maybe this is just for the States)...you see so and so is well ahead....so you think....no need for me to vote then Or something like that!!!

^ wise move CY. I waited just that little bit too long (married at the time) and ended up caught out when the mad bat threw the nation to the dogs to keep us in the ERM - cost me my house (17% interest rate on me mortgage)

The science of accurate polling in one that seems actually be going backwards.

I myself think that folks aren't that happy when pollster types, who are probably a couple of steps down the rung from used car salesmen, become a nuisance by sticking their heads into people's private lives and all. Particualrly on weekends and on the way into the pub on a Friday afternoon

Obviously the pollsters got it all wrong last time around. As in six or seven points wrong. (you can correct me here)

Would I tell a pollster the exact opposite of what I was feeling?

You damned right I would.

And would I tell the fellas down at the bar the crime I had committed.

You're damned right again.

It's going to have to be a clever polling organization that is going to be able to call this one accurately, IMO.

That's one of the things I'm watching. The variation in polls.

Ken makes the point that people may be are affected to vote one way or the other according to poll results.

The question is open is in my mind. I think voters may be affected (sic?) but not necessarily in the straightforward manner one might suspect( as in wanting to be on the winning side)....... Might actually have the opposite affect of mobilizing the folks who are trailing in the polls.

Polls can be very "political". You don't want to be perceived as being too far ahead, and you don't want to appear too far behind..

Basically you want to keep the porridge at a medium temperature and ensure the beds are all made and essentially of the same length.

28 days and counting.

I think it's "affected", I hope it's "affected". Can someone confirm ? (not wishing to sacrifice credibility and all. Grammar and spelling errors are a definite no-no on political discussion threads...write?)

157 percent.

Sounds about right.

Karzai ain't got nothing on us.

I know I'm missing something that's going to make me look really, really silly