Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[D.P.]

It would have to be a plywood bungalow (also known as shed), and the land would have to be free (and not green belt remember) as they only have £5400 per house at £2.7bn. A more accurate costing would be £50-100bn. All this while giving everyone £72 a week.

If one ignores the fact that houses will actually be sold and not given away for free. 2.7bn is plenty of initial capital to start building a lot of houses.


Under the Green manifesto people may get 72 a week but they won't be getting welfare, child tax credits, unemployment benefits, housing benfits, job seekers allowance, or pension to the same degree as is now. Give people a living wage right off the door and then you can do away with all of the complexity and overhead of state handouts Ina piecemeal fashion, improving efficiency and reducing taxation requirments.

It is little more than a form of negative income tax which has lots of advocates, even from the far right.

 

[XeNoN89]

I asked on Facebook about the interview*, it seems that among people who favour Green anyway it's had little or no negative impact and is actually being taken positively by some. Since these are the kind of people who's opinion will determine whether the interview impacts the Green's position I think it won't have much effect on their vote.

* - since I know quite a lot of people who are likely to, or considering, voting green.

I still find it strange how people who vote green aren't ****ged off as much as UKIP votes. Green's policies would be much more damaging to the country than UKIP's

 

[robgmun]

Under the Green manifesto people may get 72 a week but they won't be getting welfare, child tax credits, unemployment benefits, housing benfits, job seekers allowance, or pension to the same degree as is now. Give people a living wage right off the door and then you can do away with all of the complexity and overhead of state handouts Ina piecemeal fashion, improving efficiency and reducing taxation requirments.

I take it saw the Neil Andrews interview?

 

[robgmun]

I've been reporting this for some time, it is an obvious trend when you look at the poll averages since last October.

Just don't tell robgum, he prefers individual isolated polls that show UKIP over 20%.

I'll just leave this here....

Just had an Opinion Poll phone me up. I told them I was voting Green - but its probably UKIP. Don't want the Truth getting out too early do we !!!

And I've heard this countless times where UKIP supporters are lying to pollsters

 

[robgmun]

Genuine question, I'm looking at the YouGov polling results, what's the difference between Weighted Sample and Unweighted Sample?

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...hive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200215-FULL.pdf

Because if we're taking the data here, then on the Weighted Sample then UKIP is on 13%, but if we take the raw Unweighted data it actually looks like this

Cons 33%
Lab 40%
Lib 8%
UKIP 18%

From 1089 people

Or Am i reading this wrong? I'd like to see the total raw numbers not what they want to show me

 

[platypus]

And I've heard this countless times where UKIP supporters are lying to pollsters

Why are they ashamed to admit who they will vote for?

 

[Trifid]

If one ignores the fact that houses will actually be sold and not given away for free. 2.7bn is plenty of initial capital to start building a lot of houses.

Sold? She was talking about social houses?

 

[robgmun]

Why are they ashamed to admit who they will vote for?

According to the ones i have spoken to it's not about being ashamed it's about seeing pollsters as part of the biased media machine, so they treat them with the same contempt as telephone salesman. I personally don't share that view

 

[Crpwned]

Genuine question, I'm looking at the YouGov polling results, what's the difference between Weighted Sample and Unweighted Sample?

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploa...hive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200215-FULL.pdf

Because if we're taking the data here, then on the Weighted Sample then UKIP is on 13%, but if we take the raw Unweighted data it actually looks like this

Cons 33%
Lab 40%
Lib 8%
UKIP 18%

From 1089 people

Or Am i reading this wrong? I'd like to see the total raw numbers not what they want to show me

The unweighted data is the raw figures from the polls taken, whilst the weighted data is where they take that raw data then do some kind of number trickery to show how this would work out if the whole populace had been surveyed as the unweighted data won't take into account such factors like if there was an over representation of a specific group or selection of people.
At least that's my understanding of it.

 

[Mr Jack]

Genuine question, I'm looking at the YouGov polling results, what's the difference between Weighted Sample and Unweighted Sample?

The sample of opinions they get (the unweighted sample) does not accurately reflect the make-up of the UK population in terms of things such as gender, age, economic classification, the weighted sample is corrected for these differences between sample and population so that it more accurately reflects the opinions of the whole population.

Some pollsters also do things such as weighting by likeliness to vote, vote at last election and re-assigning some proportion of don't knows to the party they voted for last time.

Or Am i reading this wrong? I'd like to see the total raw numbers not what they want to show me

Because you will, of course, be better able to interpret the results than the professional pollsters who's long term interests lie in giving the most accurate predictions of how the vote will come?

 

[robgmun]

The unweighted data is the raw figures from the polls taken, whilst the weighted data is where they take that raw data then do some kind of number trickery to show how this would work out if the whole populace had been surveyed as the unweighted data won't take into account such factors like if there was an over representation of a specific group or selection of people.
At least that's my understanding of it.

Oh really? hummm *strokes shin*

Because you will, of course, be better able to interpret the results than the professional pollsters who's long term interests lie in giving the most accurate predictions of how the vote will come?

No interpretation is needed with raw data, any extrapolation from 1000 polled to 20 million or so voters seems shaky at best

 

[platypus]

According to the ones i have spoken to it's not about being ashamed it's about seeing pollsters as part of the biased media machine, so they treat them with the same contempt as telephone salesman. I personally don't share that view

So tin foil hats then.

 

[robgmun]

So tin foil hats then.

Do you believe the media is completely biased free?

 

[Crpwned]

No interpretation is needed with raw data, any extrapolation from 1000 polled to 20 million or so voters seems shaky at best

Wait a sec, are you now saying that you don't believe the numbers YouGov have produced for the polling, despite having said in the past -

I tend to go by YouGov anyway, as they seems not to go to the extremes

Is this a recent change of heart or just because they don't match your hopes for the projected numbers of UKIP voters?

 

[Mr Jack]

No interpretation is needed with raw data, any extrapolation from 1000 polled to 20 million or so voters seems shaky at best

Tell me, robgmum, what statistical training or experience do you have that means that we should consider your view on this more reliable than that of the professional pollsters who've collected this data?

 

[robgmun]

Is this a recent change of heart or just because they don't match your hopes for the projected numbers of UKIP voters?

Just been looking into this today and it's throwing up a lot of questions that's all, need to do more research. Certainly YouGov seem to be the most evenhanded of the lot, i'm more looking at polling as a whole

And in fact it puts Labour in a clear majority! Which is the last thing i want!

 

[V F]

It is amusing that so many people has so much faith in polls.

 

[Crpwned]

It is amusing that so many people has so much faith in polls.

I can't see why it's amusing as generally polls give a good indication of where the votes tend to end up (provided they're done professionally using various statistics and without bias). As mentioned before there are people whose jobs depend on their ability to track and predict election results and opinion polls and if they just pulled out random numbers they wouldn't be employed for long I'm sure.
Obviously the only truly accurate polling result will be the election itself but until then we make do with the data provided to us and predict from there.

 

[V F]

Professionally and without bias? Lol! Since when…

 

[Mr Jack]

Professionally and without bias? Lol! Since when…

You appear to not know the first thing about how polling is conducted.

Yes, professionally: opinion polls are prepared by experts who continually work to improve their accuracy.

Without bias? No. All polling companies have bias - better known as house effects. The trouble is that you can't know how any particular polling company is biased until we actually get an election and, well, there aren't very many of those.

I predict that this election the polls will turn out to be a poorer guide than history would lead us to believe, and seat-based projections based on those polls even more so, the rise of the UKIP and the collapse of the Lib Dem vote are likely to mean that the models used to construct the headline figures from the raw data are less accurate since they cannot be adequately tested in advance.

We saw the effect of this in polls for the European election where pre-election polls under-estimated the Tories and over-estimated UKIP and the Lib Dems.