Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[D.P.]

You're a bit obsessed with that aren't you?

Are you so blinded by biased that you refuse to see that the slide stopped at a while ago and is now starting to pick up?

I'm not obsessed, I am pointing out a useful turned that will have significant effect come May 7th

I am seeing absolutely no sign that the trend has reversed, the latest average has UKIP at the lowest rating since March 2014

 

[D.P.]

The UK will not be leaving the EU in the near future. UKIP fans need to get that through their hands, it's not happenining and they main reason is simple: money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t-britain-84-billion-unless-borders-stay-open
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101137003#.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-eurozone-summit-city-idUKBREA1C1N920140213

There are two countries which are not part of the EU but very close to it through agreements. The UK leaving will simply turn it into a third such country which will comply to EU regulations yet have no say in their creation.

The Swiss banking industry has already been pummelled by U.S. and EU regulation, of which it has no control or influence.
Norway spends more money per citizen on being an external member of the EU than the U.K. does as a member, yet has no say in any of the EU's decisions.

yep, which is why many Swiss people want to be part of the EU so they can have a say in such regulations.

 

[robgmun]

Do you think YouGov are biased against UKIP, then? Why would they want to try and misrepresent the strength of UKIP? Wouldn't they lose all credibility if it was proven they used dodgy stats?

Well the evidence is purely anecdotal, but i see many stories on quite a few boards that people who signed up to YouGov and indicated they would vote for UKIP, and where repeatedly asked throughout 2014, then suddenly this year they haven't been asked again.

 

[D.P.]

Well the evidence is purely anecdotal, but i see many stories on quite a few boards that people who signed up to YouGov and indicated they would vote for UKIP, and where repeatedly asked throughout 2014, then suddenly this year they haven't been asked again.

YouGov ask random sets of people that fit a demogpahic that tries to match the average UK voting demographic.

they don't ask the same people time and time again, tat would give disastrously poor predictive capability.

 

[robgmun]

The BBC poll tracker is actually very nice because you can get the exact figure fo various dates making it easier to compare than trying to eyeball the graphs.

UKIP had a peak of 18% on November 4th, and are now down to 13%. a 28% drop in peak to current, to be generous there was a wide window with around 17% before the peak and now a few weeks around 14%, so a fairly robust 18% drop.

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/poll-tracker

And you proved by point, BBC has them a 13% poll of polls. Yet these are the polls for the last few days?

YouGov 2015-04-07 14%
Populus 2015-04-06 15%
YouGov 2015-04-04 13%
Survation 2015-04-03 18%
Opinium 2015-04-03 14%

Either the BBC poll tracker is utterly broken, biased, or they don't know what an average is, knowing the BBC probably all three

 

[ubersonic]

Either the BBC poll tracker is utterly broken, biased, or they don't know what an average is, knowing the BBC probably all three

If you look at the individual polls (the tracker lets you select all seven of the main polls) then UKIP's scores are 16%, 14%, 15%, 9%, 13%, 13%, 12%.

That's an average of 13.14% like the poll of polls shows.

 

[D.P.]

If you look at the individual polls (the tracker lets you select all seven of the main polls) then UKIP's scores are 16%, 14%, 15%, 9%, 13%, 13%, 12%.

That's an average of 13.14% like the poll of polls shows.

Just about to post the same thing.
Part of the reason for no update since the 4th is many pollsters don't operate over bank holiday weekends in case it effects the results.

I believe the BBC poll and certainly some of the other poll of polls use a rolling average as well a single day's average wont match the poll of polls average which include results for the last week or more. UK polling report produce a weight average with older results contributing less and less. Looking at a few of the most recent polls i not as robust as a large average.

 

[koolpc]

Ukip have some points that a 'lot; of people are passionate about. Points that other parties seem scared to talk about

 

[Combat squirrel]

Not really because if you're registered to vote but don't that implies to the parties that you didn't feel engaged or motivated enough by them to vote for them, if you spoil a ballot it implies to them that another peasant is incapable of drawing an X inside a box.

Never read such rubbish - did it even cross your mind that non of the parties are any good and I want my democratic right to say that I don't agree with any of them ?

When something comes along that I agree with, I'll vote for them.

 

[deuse]

The UK will not be leaving the EU in the near future. UKIP fans need to get that through their hands, it's not happenining and they main reason is simple: money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t-britain-84-billion-unless-borders-stay-open
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101137003#.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-eurozone-summit-city-idUKBREA1C1N920140213

There are two countries which are not part of the EU but very close to it through agreements. The UK leaving will simply turn it into a third such country which will comply to EU regulations yet have no say in their creation.

The Swiss banking industry has already been pummelled by U.S. and EU regulation, of which it has no control or influence.
Norway spends more money per citizen on being an external member of the EU than the U.K. does as a member, yet has no say in any of the EU's decisions.

What a load of tosh.
"Bloomberg" "COULD"-"A report by Open Europe" just lol
CNBC forgot to mention that after leaving the EU we are now free to do business with the commonwealth.
"reuters" sod the bankers they've been the major problem for years now. Time to change the banking system
like they are doing in Canada.

Scare tactics don't work here sonny jim

This Canadian 12 year old tells it like it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE

 

[Zethor]

What a load of tosh.
"Bloomberg" "COULD"-"A report by Open Europe" just lol
CNBC forgot to mention that after leaving the EU we are now free to do business with the commonwealth.
"reuters" sod the bankers they've been the major problem for years now. Time to change the banking system
like they are doing in Canada.

Scare tactics don't work here sonny jim

This Canadian 12 year old tells it like it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE

The Commonwealth? May I remind you that the Empire does not exist anymore?
And if it's not too much to ask, where is the study that shows how much the UK would earn in the event of an exit?

 

[D.P.]

At the end of the day you're pitting one trend against another when you do poll of polls

Better to pick one company at a time and see what happening there

YouGov to Yougov, Survation to Survation

Why would there be different trends between Pollsters?
If there are different trends shows by a single pollster then that would be evidence to ignore those results because they do not fit the main trend.

All pollsters are trying to measure the same underlying results and trends so they should all agree with each other approximately. They all suffer from noise and variances so to get a cleaner signal you need to take an average of the polls to increase predictive value.

 

[D.P.]

What a load of tosh.
"Bloomberg" "COULD"-"A report by Open Europe" just lol
CNBC forgot to mention that after leaving the EU we are now free to do business with the commonwealth.
"reuters" sod the bankers they've been the major problem for years now. Time to change the banking system
like they are doing in Canada.

Scare tactics don't work here sonny jim

This Canadian 12 year old tells it like it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE

Go on, prove the results wrong then.

OF course there are words like "could" in a discussion of future events. A giant asteroid COULD destroy earth tomorrow therefore the UK leaving the EU would be irreverent and the estimates of GDP changes wrong.

 

[Mr Jack]

What Balls said in the past is certainly relevant though, and shows that he is willing to abandon his supposed economic wisdom if it will win him votes.

Except that, in fact, he hasn't said anything that contradicts what he said today unless you selectively quote from that interview yet the entire news media was instantly talking about that and not the announcement itself.

 

[Mr Jack]

Jack, the BBC poll tracker is broken.

No, it's not. And if you don't like the BBC one, I linked you to two others and pointed out you can use the BBC page to look at the polls in the manner you suggest. All show the same picture - UKIP support has declined.

Trying to do a poll of polls of companies with different methodologies will give you an inaccurate result

No more so than any other poll. In fact, we would expect the house effects to be averaged out across the poll-of-polls but there's no guarantee that the "true" opinion lies at the average of these house effects. It also reduces the effect of sampling producing noise.

 

[Mr Jack]

Perhaps they can tell us how much it'll raise in extra revenue, and how it'll do so?

Well, yes, you see that's a sensible thing for the media to talk about. Milliband's speech talked about "independent research" giving a figure of "hundreds of millions" but I haven't seen anything talking about what his source is.

 

[deuse]

The Commonwealth? May I remind you that the Empire does not exist anymore?
And if it's not too much to ask, where is the study that shows how much the UK would earn in the event of an exit?

Your link was just hear say. And as you would know hear say means nothing.
But about the commonwealth.

The Commonwealth covers more the 1/4 of the world and has a estimated population of 2.328 billion, near a third of the world.

the Commonwealth in 2014 produced a nominal GPD of $10.45 trillion representing 17% of GWP. Love a slice of that

Go on, prove the results wrong then.

As already said it's all just hear say. But for you lot of scare mongers it's a good piece of rubbish.

 

[Fulax]

Well, yes, you see that's a sensible thing for the media to talk about. Milliband's speech talked about "independent research" giving a figure of "hundreds of millions" but I haven't seen anything talking about what his source is.

Andrew Neil asked Shabana Mahmood about their source in the Daily Politics interview. She had no idea.

From around 4 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=14&v=0A1KjRPBvnU

 

[Destination]

Well, yes, you see that's a sensible thing for the media to talk about. Milliband's speech talked about "independent research" giving a figure of "hundreds of millions" but I haven't seen anything talking about what his source is.

Matchbox, back of.
The source of most of labours figures.
Flip flop, change plan, grab headline.
Like their other rubbish statements, none of it stands up to scrutiny.

On this option the lib dems have the best idea, squeeze them more, up the fees, shorter the time periods. Then you get to keep them, but make more out of them.

This is different to the things our own rich people do, where they domicile themslves elsewhere, to save paying tax here, like Lewis Hamiliton, and other famous bods.
I'll like to see suggestions to grab some of their money also.

 

[scorza]

Well, yes, you see that's a sensible thing for the media to talk about. Milliband's speech talked about "independent research" giving a figure of "hundreds of millions" but I haven't seen anything talking about what his source is.

FYI http://www.theguardian.com/news/rea...would-ending-non-dom-tax-status-raise-britain