10 REASONS WHY OPINION POLLS MIGHT BE WRONG
paul.rowntree
criticism and debate.
It is my understanding that
1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
actually voting
2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
normal voiting patterns. I believe that there
has been a sea change in what would be called traditional
class/party allegiances
3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large number of
people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the rise in
cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these are potential
conservative voters which could influence the figures
4) The Conservative landslide in the Euro elections was not predicted
5) The huge lead the polls are giving labour will reduce the amount of
people who vote for them
6) Certain parts of the press whilst claiming support for labour seem to
be assuring their readers that labour will
increase their majority which may well make them less likely to
bother voting. Whether there is any conspiratorial part to this I do
not know.
7) There is no 'get rid of the tories' momentum this time as both main
parties policies are virtually identical
8) The devolution of government in Scotland and Wales will imho increase
apathy in Westminster elections there as
they may be seen as irrelevant
9) Labour will be nibbled at from all sides, Scottish Nats, Welsh Nats,
Liberals in what were once inner city safe seats, especially in
London with the Livingstone effect and Conservatives in other marginal seats
of which there are 100 with labour majorities of less than 7,000
10) A week is along time in politics, the parties will now get similar
coverage and Hague is at his best with his back against the wall.
Labour triumphalism or skeletons falling out of cupboards may well affect
the result and the effect of the Nuremburg Rally at Sheffield in 1992
must not be forgotten
My overall prediction:
good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective strengths of
the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next government.
Nich Starling
paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
> Note this is all my opinion and if I am wrong in my claims then I
> welcome
> criticism and debate.
>
> It is my understanding that
>
> 1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
> actually voting
Yes, but recent polls also ask about the likelihood of people actually
voting. these show a remarkable symmetry between Labour and Tory voters.
> 2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
> normal voiting patterns. I believe that there has been a sea change in
> what would be called traditional class/party allegiances.
As they were in 1997. Check out how close the ICM polls were compared to
the actual result. Certainly, they fall within the 3% margin of error.
> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
> rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
> are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures.
In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis in
fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib Dems.
But then again, my information is based on fact, whereas yours is based on
opinion.
> 4)The Conservative landslide in the Euro elections was not predicted
Very few polls were carried out before the 1999 Euros. It is also not
possible to compare 1999 Euro PR elections to FPTP Parliamentary
elections.
> 5) The huge lead the polls are giving labour will reduce the amount
of people who vote for them
You've made this point before (under point 1). However, does it also not
deter Tories from voting if they know they are going to lose anyway. My
own canvassing has shown more disenchanted Tories than I can remember (and
I canvass door-to-door).
> 6) Certain parts of the press whilst claiming support for labour
> seem to be assuring their readers that labour willincrease their
> majority which may well make them less likely to bother voting. Whether
> there is any conspiratorial part to this I do not know.
You've now made the same point three times !
> 7) There is no 'get rid of the tories' momentum this time as both
> main parties policies are virtually identical
Now there is a "We don't want Hague" feeling amongst Tories as well.
> 8) The devolution of government in Scotland and Wales will imho
> increase apathy in Westminster elections there as
> they may be seen as irrelevant.
And how many seats might his cost Labour ? I can't see more than two seats
being lost by Labour to the Tories (Monmouth and Eastwood). Whilst the SNP
might win 3 and PC two !
> 9) Labour will be nibbled at from all sides, Scottish Nats, Welsh
> Nats, Liberals in what were once inner city safe seats, especially in
> London with the Livingstone effect and Conservatives in other marginal
> seats of which there are 100 with labour majorities of less than
> 7,000
You've just mentioned nationalist issues, and now you make the point again
!
I really think there is a gap in your knowledge. The Nats will make small
gains, whilst Lib Dems might win 12 seats of Labour on a good day.
As for London, accept for former Labour rotten boroughs where they ran or
run local authorities poorly (Islington and Southwark spring to mind),
Labour have done very well in local by-elections since 1997. London Labour
seem to be immune from the losses threat Labour have suffered from the Lib
Dems in Cambridge, Norwich, Leeds, york, Liverpool, Oldham and Sheffield.
> 10) A week is along time in politics, the parties will now get similar
> coverage and Hague is at his best with his back against the
> wall.
Historically, it is the Lib Dem who benefit most from even handed election
coverage. If you feel the Tories are under represented in the news, then
you really are blinkered !
> Labour triumphalism or skeletons falling out of cupboards may well
> affect the result and the effect of the Nuremburg Rally at Sheffield in
> 1992 must not be forgotten.
For Kinnock 1992 see Hague 2001. They will talk for years about the "Hague
Effect" in political lectures at university.
> My overall prediction:
>
> good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
Good Weather - Lab Majority 120
> bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective strengths
> of the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next government.
Bad Weather 80 majority
- Nich
Richard Gadsden
> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
> rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
> are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures
How could it influence the figures?
Telephone polls dial numbers at random so you have just as good a chance
of being called if ex-directory as if you're in the directory.
And phone polls because they're not selling anything are exempt from TPS
regulations as well.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Daniel Yates
"Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010507...@nejs.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
> paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
>
> > Note this is all my opinion and if I am wrong in my claims then I
> > welcome
> > criticism and debate.
> >
> > It is my understanding that
> >
> > 1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
> > actually voting
>
> Yes, but recent polls also ask about the likelihood of people actually
> voting. these show a remarkable symmetry between Labour and Tory voters.
>
> > 2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
> > normal voiting patterns. I believe that there has been a sea change in
> > what would be called traditional class/party allegiances.
>
> As they were in 1997. Check out how close the ICM polls were compared to
> the actual result. Certainly, they fall within the 3% margin of error.
And the poll of polls was even closer I believe
>
> > 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
> > number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
> > rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
> > are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures.
>
> In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis in
> fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
> proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib Dems.
> But then again, my information is based on fact, whereas yours is based on
> opinion.
Opinion polls usually phone at random this removes the ex-directory factor,
but does include the 'not on phone' factor ( which these days is
statistically a very small number
>
> > 4)The Conservative landslide in the Euro elections was not predicted
>
> Very few polls were carried out before the 1999 Euros. It is also not
> possible to compare 1999 Euro PR elections to FPTP Parliamentary
> elections.
That's right, it's difficult to compare apples with oranges for taste
> > 5) The huge lead the polls are giving labour will reduce the amount
> of people who vote for them
>
> You've made this point before (under point 1). However, does it also not
> deter Tories from voting if they know they are going to lose anyway. My
> own canvassing has shown more disenchanted Tories than I can remember (and
> I canvass door-to-door).
I agree Nich, I'm still suprised at the number of people who voted Tory as
one last chance in 1997 but who have admitted that Labour's done well enough
to gain their support in 2001
>
> > 6) Certain parts of the press whilst claiming support for labour
> > seem to be assuring their readers that labour willincrease their
> > majority which may well make them less likely to bother voting. Whether
> > there is any conspiratorial part to this I do not know.
>
> You've now made the same point three times !
>
> > 7) There is no 'get rid of the tories' momentum this time as both
> > main parties policies are virtually identical
>
> Now there is a "We don't want Hague" feeling amongst Tories as well.
Again we agree Nich, there are a lot of "well I'm a Tory but that Hague lot
aren't getting my vote" voters about
>
> > 8) The devolution of government in Scotland and Wales will imho
> > increase apathy in Westminster elections there as
> > they may be seen as irrelevant.
>
> And how many seats might his cost Labour ? I can't see more than two seats
> being lost by Labour to the Tories (Monmouth and Eastwood). Whilst the SNP
> might win 3 and PC two !
>
> > 9) Labour will be nibbled at from all sides, Scottish Nats, Welsh
> > Nats, Liberals in what were once inner city safe seats, especially in
> > London with the Livingstone effect and Conservatives in other marginal
> > seats of which there are 100 with labour majorities of less than
> > 7,000
>
> You've just mentioned nationalist issues, and now you make the point again
> !
>
> I really think there is a gap in your knowledge. The Nats will make small
> gains, whilst Lib Dems might win 12 seats of Labour on a good day.
>
> As for London, accept for former Labour rotten boroughs where they ran or
> run local authorities poorly (Islington and Southwark spring to mind),
> Labour have done very well in local by-elections since 1997. London Labour
> seem to be immune from the losses threat Labour have suffered from the Lib
> Dems in Cambridge, Norwich, Leeds, york, Liverpool, Oldham and Sheffield.
>
>
> > 10) A week is along time in politics, the parties will now get similar
> > coverage and Hague is at his best with his back against the
> > wall.
>
Throwing up I presume!
> Historically, it is the Lib Dem who benefit most from even handed election
> coverage. If you feel the Tories are under represented in the news, then
> you really are blinkered !
>
Ceratinly the LibDems here all cite General Election coverage as being a big
boost to their support...I can't see that Hagues crew on TV more is going to
inspire voters support.
>
> > Labour triumphalism or skeletons falling out of cupboards may well
> > affect the result and the effect of the Nuremburg Rally at Sheffield in
> > 1992 must not be forgotten.
>
> For Kinnock 1992 see Hague 2001. They will talk for years about the "Hague
> Effect" in political lectures at university.
>
> > My overall prediction:
> >
> > good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
>
> Good Weather - Lab Majority 120
>
Higher, Higher
> > bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective strengths
> > of the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next government.
>
> Bad Weather 80 majority
Higher Higher
Dan Yates
>
> - Nich
Al
At least I'd hope there'd be a bloody revolution.
--
Al
Iain Bowen
In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
paul.rowntree <paul.r...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Note this is all my opinion and if I am wrong in my claims then I welcome
>criticism and debate.
>
>It is my understanding that
>
>1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
>actually voting
Incorrect. Published polls only include those who say they are voting.
>2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
>normal voiting patterns. I believe that there
> has been a sea change in what would be called traditional
>class/party allegiances
Incorrect. Samples are taken on a demographic basis and adjusted in
favour of the conservatives.
>3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large number of
>people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the rise in
>cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these are potential
>conservative voters which could influence the figures
Incorrect. Polls use random dialling.
>4) The Conservative landslide in the Euro elections was not predicted
Very few polls (if any) were specifically taken for the Euro elections
- don't confuse apples and oranges.
>5) The huge lead the polls are giving labour will reduce the amount of
>people who vote for them
Unlikely, but possible. Labour will also attract a small share of the
vote who like to vote for the winner.
Non-polling questions not answered. It is noticable that the Tories tried
to deny the polls last time as well. The polls weren't perfect, but they
were far more correct than the Tories.
Iain
--
\/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
West Midlands Election Site at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/election.html
Cliff Morrison
<A...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think there would be a bloody revolution if Hague got it in.
>
> At least I'd hope there'd be a bloody revolution.
Sad to say, if even the Blairites couldn't provoke one
there's little chance of Hauge doing so either.
The people of Britain died some time ago.
)-:
Oliver Vass
those who cared enough to do anything about it (ie. revolt/vote) more wanted
him than not. Which party wins is unlikely to trigger a revolution.
Idiot.
OV
Al <A...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6hAtQdBo...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk...
Nich Starling
dan...@yates-home.fsnet.co.uk (Daniel Yates) wrote:
snip
> > > My overall prediction:
> > >
> > > good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
> >
> > Good Weather - Lab Majority 120
> >
> Higher, Higher
>
> > > bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective
> > > strengths
> > > of the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next
> > > government.
> >
> > Bad Weather 80 majority
>
> Higher Higher
>
> Dan Yates
You may well be correct Dan. Labour could get an even bigger majority !
I am pleased that you agreed with my overall analysis. Psephology has
always been a hobby and I do not let my own political colours cloud my
opinions (as some in this newsgroup do !)
Cheers Nich
John R Ramsden
>
> Note this is all my opinion and if I am wrong in my claims then
> I welcome criticism and debate.
Goes without saying for all of us, although some don't seem quite
so keen on the criticism and debate part!
> It is my understanding that
>
> 1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of
> a person actually voting
>
> [.. several other good points snipped ..]
Apart from defects in the conduct and interpretation of opinion polls
themselves, another reason why I'm very skeptical of their conclusions
of a larger majority for NuLab is the fact that these clowns have been
seriously upsetting lots of diverse groups in society by various ways.
Individually, each such group may not count for much electorally, as
NuLab no doubt cynically conclude when calculating how much they can
get away with (literally - we're mostly talking money here).
But cumulatively NuLab's majority will be seriously eroded by the
seething ill will and denied support of these voters, who include:
- 100,000 contractors in various industries such as IT. A typical
contractor facing an additional tax bill of over £10,000 per annum
would have to be clinically insane even to contemplate voting Labour.
(The Tories have unequivocably committed to scrap IR35 if elected.)
- Students. I'm not sure of exact numbers here, but probably several
hundred thousand students in higher education are spitting mad at
being compelled to pay tuition fees and being lumbered with years
of debt.
Sure the Tories might not be much better in this regard; but many
students will feel a special sense of betrayal that tuition fees
were introduced/perpetuated (not sure exactly when they were first
introduced) by NuLab, given their "education * 3" hot-air soundbite.
I could go on endlessly, and actually it would be very interesting if
other readers joined in to compile a longer gripe list: small traders,
farmers, euroskeptics, libertarians, drivers (domestic and commercial),
lawyers, anti-excessive-immigrationists , football fans (mindful of the
Wembley stadium fiasco), peaceniks (think Kosovo and NMD - In fact just
think Robin Cook; he's enough on his own to convince practically everyone
in the country never to vote Labour again).
Also, lets not forget the family members of people in these categories,
who will tend to share their antipathies (especially where the latter
are based on significant financial loss!). That multiplies the figures
by two or three.
One final point, before I risk running off the mouth. When (if) you,
dear reader, find yourself in a polling booth on the big day, just
remember that during NuLab's term of office, "tax free" day has now
slipped forward by over two weeks and now, by coincidence, it occurs
on almost the same date as polling day.
Savour that thought - since last Christmas, and still with several
weeks to go, in other words for almost half the year, every penny
you have earned has in effect been claimed by the state. And what
extra benefits do we have to show for all our compulsory generosity,
or are ever likely to see? Bugger all.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.
St Augustine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al
Oliver Vass <olive...@virgin.net> writes
>Why? Just because you don't like him? If he got in, it would mean that, of
>those who cared enough to do anything about it (ie. revolt/vote) more wanted
>him than not. Which party wins is unlikely to trigger a revolution.
>Idiot.
So those who don't vote don't care? Those who didn't vote for the only
party likely to prevent a Tory victory (i.e. Labour) wanted Hague in?
Should those that allowed Hitler and Stalin in on the basis that they
couldn't elect someone better have displayed the same inactivity?
Prat.
--
Al
Zer0
"Al" <A...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think there would be a bloody revolution if Hague got it in.
I'm sure that Ffion would be quite revolted if he did manage to get it in.
So far as blood is concerned, I fear that I find it rather too unseemly to
consider in such a respectable ng as uk.politics.misc.
As you seem to have posted to most of the known universe, why not add
alt.vampires.blood?
Zer0
Richard Gadsden
> In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
> "paul.rowntree" <paul.r...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > My overall prediction:
> >
> > good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
> >
> > bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective
> > strengths of
> > the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next government.
>
> And would you be happy to put some pocket money up against either of
> these
> bizarre "predictions"? Let's say <Euro>2000?
Get ye to flutter.com
welsh witch
>>criticism and debate.
>>It is my understanding thatSNIP (re explorerbeing a damn nuiscence)
Most of Wales used to vote Labour...due to mining dust and other dusty occupations
getting into voters brains...things are changing though!!
--
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/dogsalive.htm
http://www.welshpool1.com/welshpoolalive.htm
Oliver Vass
No, if they wanted Hague, they would vote for him. Not voting doesn't mean
"wanted Hague in", just "Didn't care enough to do anything about it" Lack of
negative can mean neutral as well as positive.
Halfwit.
OV
Gaz
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B71D83F29...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <memo.20010507...@tg0001a001.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> richard...@blueyonder.co.uk (Richard Gadsden) wrote:
> --
> Voting Tory
> will kill you
> B. S .E.
No human as ever died, or ever will die of BSE.
More lies eh?
Gaz
John Fisher
> I could go on endlessly, and actually it would be very interesting if
> other readers joined in to compile a longer gripe list: small traders,
> farmers, euroskeptics, libertarians, drivers (domestic and commercial),
> lawyers, anti-excessive-immigrationists , football fans (mindful of the
> Wembley stadium fiasco), peaceniks
It's a great mistake to see the electorate as being composed
of discrete groups of people like that. No one is *just* a
driver, or *just* a football fan, or whatever. They are all
sorts of things, altogether, some of which make them
approve of the government, some not. You have to add
everything up. In other words, the election depends on
whether people are (on balance, taking one thing with
another) more pleased with the government than they are
pissed off with them. But we knew that already.
--
John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>And how many seats might his cost Labour ? I can't see more than two seats
>being lost by Labour to the Tories (Monmouth and Eastwood). Whilst the SNP
>might win 3 and PC two !
Two? I can see Carmarthen East, but what other one did you have in mind?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>
>1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
>actually voting
True - how could they?
>
>2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
>normal voiting patterns. I believe that there
> has been a sea change in what would be called traditional
>class/party allegiances
I don't think that's true.
>
>3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large number of
>people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the rise in
>cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these are potential
>conservative voters which could influence the figures
I believe they use some sort of random method which doesn't exclude ex-
directory people.
>
>4) The Conservative landslide in the Euro elections was not predicted
Low turnout & PR renders extrapolation meaningless.
>
>7) There is no 'get rid of the tories' momentum this time as both main
>parties policies are virtually identical
There's a 'keep the Tories out' factor though.
>
>8) The devolution of government in Scotland and Wales will imho increase
>apathy in Westminster elections there as
> they may be seen as irrelevant
Maybe.
>
>9) Labour will be nibbled at from all sides, Scottish Nats, Welsh Nats,
>Liberals in what were once inner city safe seats, especially in
>London with the Livingstone effect and Conservatives in other marginal seats
>of which there are 100 with labour majorities of less than 7,000
>
Labours traditional safe seats are *so* safe that 'nibbling' will have
no significant effect.
>10) A week is along time in politics, the parties will now get similar
>coverage and Hague is at his best with his back against the wall.
Surely the firing squad will wait until *after* the election? :)
>
>My overall prediction:
>
>good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
I'm not prepared to commit to a prediction at this early stage.
>
>bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority, the respective strengths of
>the Liberal Democrats and Unionists will decide the next government.
>
While weather would surely affect turnout, I don't believe it will
differentiate between parties.
Peter (Election-2001.net)
Perhaps he was thinking of Conwy, which might seem very unlikely but
went narrowly to Plaid in both 1999 elections and is arguably a
four-way marginal this time! Plaid polled very badly in a Conwy
council by-election at the end of March, but the ward was across the
constituency boundary in Clwyd West
Then there are the three traditionally ultra-safe Labour seats which
went Plaid in '99: Islwyn, Llanelli and Rhondda. Labour losing any of
those really would be a shock - though the CP ran them very close in
the Rhondda in '45...
>--
>Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
--
Peter Rushton
http://www.election-2001.net
director, Online Britain PLC
Richard Gadsden
> In article <memo.20010507...@tg0001a001.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> richard...@blueyonder.co.uk (Richard Gadsden) wrote:
> > Get ye to flutter.com
>
> I doubt they'd be that stupid.
flutter.com lets you bet against other people - they're not a bookmaker,
just a middleman for person-to-person betting.
John R Ramsden
>
> John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >
> > I could go on endlessly, and actually it would be very
> > interesting if other readers joined in to compile a
> > longer gripe list: small traders, farmers, euroskeptics,
> > libertarians, drivers (domestic and commercial), lawyers,
> > anti-excessive-immigrationists , football fans (mindful
> > of the Wembley stadium fiasco), peaceniks
>
> It's a great mistake to see the electorate as being composed
> of discrete groups of people like that. No one is *just* a
> driver, or *just* a football fan, or whatever. They are all
> sorts of things, altogether, some of which make them approve
> of the government, some not.
Obviously, but most people quite rightly attach far more weight,
for most a decisive significance, to things that adversely affect
them personally, or threaten their outlook and whole way of life.
Why the hell shouldn't they?
Naturally people tend to take for granted and discount the
Government's few self-proclaimed achievements, most of which
have amounted to no more than "holding the fort" anyway, and
not very well at that.
Even most of their crusades, embarked on with such ignorant
and optimistic arrogance, have turned out to be damp squibs
and disappointing non-starters for their enthustic supporters,
while at the same time annoying and upsetting their opponents.
Quoting Tennyson, it's a case of "Cannons to the left of
them and cannons to the right of them". But this time the
gallant 600 [?] NuLab candidates will be galloping past
not cannons but disguntled voters:
Teachers among other left-wingers will probably be voting
LibDem in droves, and a host of middle class voters who
naturally incline to the right and are now feeling rather
sheepish for allowing themselves to be carried away last
time by Tony's engaging grin and his extravagant promises
(most still unfulfilled) may now think again and vote Tory.
Well let's hope the Tories have all their guns primed and
ready (and they don't turn them on each other this time!)
> You have to add everything up. In other words, the
> election depends on whether people are (on balance,
> taking one thing with another) more pleased with the
> government than they are pissed off with them. But
> we knew that already.
That last quip suggests a smugness which is probably shared
by NuLab, for all their fake humility. Reluctantly I suppose
they'll probably win, worst luck. But let's hope it's with
a much reduced majority, and I suspect many people across
the whole political spectrum will at least share that hope,
for all our sakes.
c3rb3rus
"Gaz" <gazter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d8m1v$hdsat$1...@ID-49507.news.dfncis.de...
Quite a number have died from nvCJD which is (though to be) contracted by
eating meat infected with BSE though.
Liars, damned liars, and pedants?
RossR
ne...@cix.co.uk says...
> And how many seats might his cost Labour ? I can't see more than two seats
> being lost by Labour to the Tories (Monmouth and Eastwood). Whilst the SNP
> might win 3 and PC two !
>
Jim Murphy has been a good constituency MP by all accounts he may just
fancy hanging on to that Eastwood seat also to be considered is the fact
that the Tories couldnt take the Eastwood seat in the scottish
parliamentaries when there was no Westminster factor to speak of it was a
clean slate and they still couldnt top the poll.Id be interested to hear
what 3 seats you think the SNP may gain or do you mean hold on to ?
RossR
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Teachers among other left-wingers will probably be voting
> LibDem in droves, and a host of middle class voters who
> naturally incline to the right and are now feeling rather
> sheepish for allowing themselves to be carried away last
> time by Tony's engaging grin and his extravagant promises
> (most still unfulfilled) may now think again and vote Tory.
More likely a host of right-inclined middle class voters who
still voted Tory in 1997 because they were afraid Tony Blair
once elected would rip off his soft Tory mask and come out as
a red-blooded left-wing socialist now realise their fears were
unfounded. Meanwhile a host of left-inclined voters who voted
Labour in 1997 under much the same assumption will be feeling
pissed off and might just be persuaded to put their votes
somewhere else (though loyalty to the label "Labour" is a
mightily difficult thing to shake off).
Matthew Huntbach
John Fisher
> More likely a host of right-inclined middle class voters who
> still voted Tory in 1997 because they were afraid Tony Blair
> once elected would rip off his soft Tory mask and come out as
> a red-blooded left-wing socialist now realise their fears were
> unfounded. Meanwhile a host of left-inclined voters who voted
> Labour in 1997 under much the same assumption will be feeling
> pissed off and might just be persuaded to put their votes
> somewhere else
I was never under any illusions about what a NuLab
government would turn out to be like, and to that extent at
any rate, I haven't been disappointed.
> (though loyalty to the label "Labour" is a
> mightily difficult thing to shake off).
Well, I'm 56 this year, and I've only once in my entire life
voted anything other Labour, I come from a traditionally
left-wing family, I was a Labour party member for years and
years, and so on. But this time, d'you know, it's proving
to be surprisingly easy to contemplate fleeing the fold.
One of the main reasons, I think, is that the Government and
its various hangers-on have made it perfectly plain that
they despise people like me, and consider that we have
nothing worth-while to contribute. Well, despising people
is not a good way to keep their support. Do you remember
Wossname Draper? "We don't need you, and we don't want
you!" Okay, pal, that's clear enough, and this time you
won't have me. I'm off. But I'm taking my vote with me.
NuLabour is no longer my party, and it is they themselves
who have made that perfectly explicit. I am part of the
past they wish to forget, and wish had never happened.
Well. Their decision.
And forget this "There's nowhere else for the left to go"
shite. One of the effects of moving further and further to
the right is that there are more and more people on your
left. I'm in Scotland, so I have at least three
possibilities, none of which in a Scottish context looks in
any way like a wasted vote. I have doubts about them all,
but at the moment I'd vote for any of them with a feeling of
release, frankly, and precious little of the angst Matthew
mentioned.
Archangel Gabriel
Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> More likely a host of right-inclined middle class voters who
> still voted Tory in 1997 because they were afraid Tony Blair
> once elected would rip off his soft Tory mask and come out as
> a red-blooded left-wing socialist now realise their fears were
> unfounded. Meanwhile a host of left-inclined voters who voted
> Labour in 1997 under much the same assumption will be feeling
> pissed off and might just be persuaded to put their votes
> somewhere else (though loyalty to the label "Labour" is a
> mightily difficult thing to shake off).
>
Good one - and disappointed left-wingers don't exactly present a direct
threat to Labour through voting Tory, do they?
The main reason why opinion polls may be wrong is that Conservatism is too
shameful to declare itself for many people - greed and avarice is sinful,
these people would rather lie than be seen to be greedheads.
Gabriel
Archangel Gabriel
<jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> And forget this "There's nowhere else for the left to go"
> shite. One of the effects of moving further and further to
> the right is that there are more and more people on your
> left. I'm in Scotland, so I have at least three
> possibilities, none of which in a Scottish context looks in
> any way like a wasted vote. I have doubts about them all,
> but at the moment I'd vote for any of them with a feeling of
> release, frankly, and precious little of the angst Matthew
> mentioned.
So who is it then that DOES represent you - not the Nats, surely -
fundamentally right-wing by definition - LibDem - well, they'll supprt Tony
come what may. You could always vote Tory as a protest... nah, that's the
down escalator for sure. Until we get PR, forget the socialists.
Stuffed, eh?
Gabriel
John Fisher
> On 9/5/01 11:45 am, in article 9db73q$ocb$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk, "John Fisher"
> <jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > And forget this "There's nowhere else for the left to go"
> > shite. One of the effects of moving further and further to
> > the right is that there are more and more people on your
> > left. I'm in Scotland, so I have at least three
> > possibilities, none of which in a Scottish context looks in
> > any way like a wasted vote. I have doubts about them all,
> > but at the moment I'd vote for any of them with a feeling of
> > release, frankly, and precious little of the angst Matthew
> > mentioned.
>
> So who is it then that DOES represent you
No one. I'm just picking someone to vote for, that's all.
> - not the Nats, surely -
> fundamentally right-wing by definition
No, I couldn't accept that. I wouldn't class myself as a
nationalist, but their policies are usually more progressive
than NuLab's.
> - LibDem - well, they'll supprt Tony
> come what may.
An oversimplification, especially in the Scottish context.
Here they are actually in coalition with Labour on the
Executive, and their influence has I think been a good one.
> You could always vote Tory as a protest... nah, that's the
> down escalator for sure.
Yes, there are limits. I wouldn't want to reward Hague and
his bunch of trogs and nasal-whining rabble-rousers. Seems
to me they still need a good slappin' about before they'll
make a respectable opposition, never mind a government.
> Until we get PR, forget the socialists.
> Stuffed, eh?
I think you seem to be under the impression that this
election matters... Whereas (a) clearly NuLab are going to
win, and (b) many of the election 'issues', notably health
and education, are in Scotland handled by the Scottish
Parliament and the Executive, and the elections for that
aren't for another two years.
From that perspective it's entirely rational to vote for a
small party, even for the SSP, simply to keep their numbers
up.
Everyone is 'stuffed' in this election except NuLab, in the
sense that only they have a chance of winning. But there
are minor prizes on offer.
Colin Rosenstiel
archange...@virgin.net (Archangel Gabriel) wrote:
This was a concern in 1997. No government had been quite so far behind in
the polls for so long, right up to the election. It seemed axiomatic that
they would recover but the polls were pretty well spot on and Labour's
landslide actually did happen.
--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/
Colin Rosenstiel
archange...@virgin.net (Archangel Gabriel) wrote:
> On 9/5/01 11:45 am, in article 9db73q$ocb$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk, "John
> Fisher" <jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > And forget this "There's nowhere else for the left to go"
> > shite. One of the effects of moving further and further to
> > the right is that there are more and more people on your
> > left. I'm in Scotland, so I have at least three
> > possibilities, none of which in a Scottish context looks in
> > any way like a wasted vote. I have doubts about them all,
> > but at the moment I'd vote for any of them with a feeling of
> > release, frankly, and precious little of the angst Matthew
> > mentioned.
>
> So who is it then that DOES represent you - not the Nats, surely -
> fundamentally right-wing by definition -
> LibDem - well, they'll supprt Tony come what may
Where do you get that bizarre idea?
> You could always vote Tory as a protest... nah, that's
> the down escalator for sure. Until we get PR, forget the socialists.
>
> Stuffed, eh?
--
Ivor Peksa
>
>"Nich Starling" <ne...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:memo.20010507...@nejs.compulink.co.uk...
>> In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
>> paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
>>
>> > 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
>> > number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
>> > rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
>> > are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures.
>>
>> In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis in
>> fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
>> proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib Dems.
>> But then again, my information is based on fact, whereas yours is based on
>> opinion.
>
>Opinion polls usually phone at random this removes the ex-directory factor,
>but does include the 'not on phone' factor ( which these days is
>statistically a very small number
It doesn't however remove the 'not at home' factor. Do pollsters try
to get a socioeconomic cross-section of the electorate these days?
|| E-mail: Iv...@ivorp.com
|| UK Tel (H): +44 118 969 4819
|| UK Tel (M): +44 774 836 0224
|| UK Fax : +44 709 212 2755
Ivor Peksa
>In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
>paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
>> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
>> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
>> rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
>> are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures.
>
>In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis in
>fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
>proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib Dems.
Just out of interest, how do you find this? Are you comparing canvass
returns with your TPS lists, or do you phone the poor buggers up?
Iain Bowen
Ivor Peksa <iv...@ivorp.com> wrote:
>It doesn't however remove the 'not at home' factor. Do pollsters try
>to get a socioeconomic cross-section of the electorate these days?
Yes, although the actual mix is sekrit.
Iain
--
\/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
West Midlands Election Site at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/election.html
Al
<gazter...@yahoo.com> writes
>No human as ever died, or ever will die of BSE.
about 80 have as a result of BSE
--
Al
Al
Oliver Vass <olive...@virgin.net> writes
>No, if they wanted Hague, they would vote for him. Not voting doesn't mean
>"wanted Hague in", just "Didn't care enough to do anything about it" Lack of
>negative can mean neutral as well as positive.
>Halfwit.
which contradicts your assertion that more wanted him in than not in a
first past the post system.
Pillock.
--
Al
Al
<ze...@DELETE.bigwig.net> writes
>As you seem to have posted to most of the known universe, why not add
>alt.vampires.blood?
you've posted it to most of the known universe as well, so you could
have done it for me
--
Al
Steve Cleary
news:tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> Note this is all my opinion and if I am wrong in my claims then I welcome
> criticism and debate.
Don't hold yourself hostage to that remark!
> 1) Opinion Polls do not take into account the probability of a person
> actually voting
How would this be achieved? A factor of some kind applied over the years
taking account of propensity to vote?
>
> 2) They are based on samples taken from areas weighted to account for
> normal voiting patterns. I believe that there
> has been a sea change in what would be called traditional
> class/party allegiances
Something the media still seem to have problems with.
>
> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large number
of
> people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the rise
in
> cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these are
potential
> conservative voters which could influence the figures
Why presume that those who are ex-directory are Conservative? Any evidence
for this?
>
> 5) The huge lead the polls are giving labour will reduce the amount of
> people who vote for them
One wonders why anyone would switch from Labour to Tory........<g>.
>
> 7) There is no 'get rid of the tories' momentum this time as both main
> parties policies are virtually identical
On what issues precisely?
> 8) The devolution of government in Scotland and Wales will imho
increase
> apathy in Westminster elections there as
> they may be seen as irrelevant
How about this to get the voters out? Turn out and vote or devolution will
be no more under a Hague government.
> 9) Labour will be nibbled at from all sides, Scottish Nats, Welsh Nats,
> Liberals in what were once inner city safe seats,
I wasn't aware that the Liberals were strong enough. Liberal Democrats
maybe....
> My overall prediction:
>
> good Weather on June 7th: Labour Majority of 30-40
I'd give them more than that personally. At least 80-90. The question is
whether they will use their second term in a more radical way to tackle
issues.
>
> bad Weather on June 7th: No overall majority,
The problem with this analysis is that to lose such a majority would be
cataclysmic in itself.
Steve Cleary
John Cartmell
> still voted Tory in 1997 because they were afraid Tony Blair
> once elected would rip off his soft Tory mask and come out as
> a red-blooded left-wing socialist now realise their fears were
> unfounded. Meanwhile a host of left-inclined voters who voted
> Labour in 1997 under much the same assumption will be feeling
> pissed off and might just be persuaded to put their votes
> somewhere else (though loyalty to the label "Labour" is a
> mightily difficult thing to shake off).
What you're almost grasping is that Tony Blair is actually a Liberal
Democrat and this is all a plot to demolish the Tories and give the Lib
Dems a chance of government.
Good.
--
John Cartmell - Manchester, UK
Fleur Designs -- FD Games - - - compact designer board games at:
Acorn/RISC OS Show - - - Thornes Park Stadium, Wakefield
19th & 20th May 2001
Nich Starling
(Ivor Peksa) wrote:
> ne...@cix.co.uk (Nich Starling) wrote:
>
> >In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
> >paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
>
> >> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
> >> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to
> > the >rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of
> > these >are potential conservative voters which could influence the
> > figures.
> >
> >In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis
> in >fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
> >proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib
> Dems.
>
> Just out of interest, how do you find this? Are you comparing canvass
> returns with your TPS lists, or do you phone the poor buggers up?
No, we don't phone them up, although we have evidence that the Tories are
risking a £5000 fine by doing so !!!
We have a massive amount of historical data for the constituency. We are
finding that the people going for TPS are, when we have old canvass data
for them, spread fairly evenly between the parties, though slightly less
for Labour.
> || E-mail: Iv...@ivorp.com
Cheers
Nich
David Freeland
RossR wrote in message ...
Jim Murphy is the most arrogant person I have ever come across and
extraordinarily dim, plus Nat-basher ad nauseum (Prejudiced, moi?!) I think
that the first seat the Tories take in Scotland will be Ayr, not Eastwood.
There will be tough fights for Pentlands, Stirling and Eastwood though. I
don't think Stirling will fall and the other two are too close to call.
As for the SNP, the bell will sound in Dundee. If we take Dundee East, then
we will do very well on our target seats based on 1997. If we take Dundee
West, then those seats we did very well in at the Scottish elections will
fall. The real battlegrounds for Labour-SNP fights will be Inverness East
(almost certain to fall to the SNP), Govan, Ochil, Dundee East & West,
Aberdeen North.
>RossR
Ivor Peksa
>In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk> on Mon, 7 May 2001
>17:24:04 +0100, paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
>
>
>> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
>> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to the
>> rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most of these
>> are potential conservative voters which could influence the figures
>
>How could it influence the figures?
>
>Telephone polls dial numbers at random so you have just as good a chance
>of being called if ex-directory as if you're in the directory.
>
>And phone polls because they're not selling anything are exempt from TPS
>regulations as well.
They are selling something far more expensive than double glazing -
40% of our money - in one way or another - is taken by the government
to spend. If anything is covered by privacy regs, surely canvassing
ought to be high on the list!
Followups chopped.
Nich Starling
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
> In article <ue4hft4tfolcq4u08...@4ax.com>,
> Ivor Peksa <iv...@ivorp.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <tfdj2uk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
> > >paul.r...@lineone.net (paul.rowntree) wrote:
> >
> > >> 3) Many, if not all, polls are done by telephone polls. A large
> > >> number of people have gone ex directory in the last 4 years due to
> > > the >> rise in cold calling from telephone sales centres, IMHO most
> > > of these >> are potential conservative voters which could influence
> > > the figures.
> > >
> > >In my honest opinion, your opinions are just that, and have no basis
> > in >fact. i am a Lib Dem activist and we are finding that a very high
> > >proportion of TPS (telephone preference service) people are also Lib
> > Dems.
> > Just out of interest, how do you find this? Are you comparing canvass
> > returns with your TPS lists, or do you phone the poor buggers up?
>
> There is nothing illegal about telephone [or for that matter doorstep]
> canvassing people on the TPS list. Nothing at all.
You have not contacted the Telephone preference service for their latest
guidance then, have you ?
According to the TPS, political canvassing DOES break their rules and IS
punishable by a fine !!!!
> Voting Tory
> will kill you
> B. S .E.
- Nich
Colin Rosenstiel
ne...@cix.co.uk (Nich Starling) wrote:
> In article <B71F788F9...@0.0.0.0>,
> 66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
[snip]
> > There is nothing illegal about telephone [or for that matter doorstep]
> > canvassing people on the TPS list. Nothing at all.
>
> You have not contacted the Telephone preference service for their
> latest guidance then, have you ?
>
> According to the TPS, political canvassing DOES break their rules and
> IS punishable by a fine !!!!
Never mind the TPS opinion, the Data Protection Commissioner (or whatever
Elizabeth France's title now is) has made it very clear that canvassing
does come within the statue in her opinion. Perhaps Simon would like to
sacrifice his life savings in proving her wrong in law?
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>we will do very well on our target seats based on 1997. If we take Dundee
>West, then those seats we did very well in at the Scottish elections will
>fall. The real battlegrounds for Labour-SNP fights will be Inverness East
>(almost certain to fall to the SNP), Govan, Ochil, Dundee East & West,
>Aberdeen North.
I think the main issue may well be how much Scots differentiate between
UK elections, and ones to their own parliament.
However much they vote for the SNP in a GE, they'll still be a small
fish in a big pond, so that may well continue to depress the SNP vote
well below its Scottish parliament level.
Oliver Vass
Al <A...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Al$ww0AOS...@dunsmuir.demon.co.uk...
Not an assertion, a hypothesis.
Twonk.
David Freeland
>On Wed, 9 May 2001, David Freeland <dav...@winbourne.freeserve.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>>As for the SNP, the bell will sound in Dundee. If we take Dundee East,
then
>>we will do very well on our target seats based on 1997. If we take Dundee
>>West, then those seats we did very well in at the Scottish elections will
>>fall. The real battlegrounds for Labour-SNP fights will be Inverness East
>>(almost certain to fall to the SNP), Govan, Ochil, Dundee East & West,
>>Aberdeen North.
>
>I think the main issue may well be how much Scots differentiate between
>UK elections, and ones to their own parliament.
Differentiation is poor. You only had to watch First Ministers Questions
today to see the Labour pledge card being brought out and continual
reference made to what the Prime Minister and Secretary of State said today
and yesterday.
>However much they vote for the SNP in a GE, they'll still be a small
>fish in a big pond, so that may well continue to depress the SNP vote
>well below its Scottish parliament level.
All the polls show that SNP support is higher than in 1997 but will continue
to be lower in a Westminster context than in an Edinburgh context. But the
real question is Labour apathy. The real reason the SNP did so well was
because Labour didn't turn up to vote. In dozens of seats the SNP did
increase their numerical vote by over 1000 in many places, but often the
Labour vote was down 5000-10000. If this happens again, then we can expect a
better night than four years ago.
I think Swinney will set a campaign strategy of targeting the marginals
unlike what Salmond did in 1999 and I think that will bear fruit. Unofficial
party polling coming back to me suggests that targeted seats like Ochil are
in our grasp but don't be surprised if Govan stays Labour. Of course,
there's still a campaign to fight!
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>However much they vote for the SNP in a GE, they'll still be a small
>>fish in a big pond, so that may well continue to depress the SNP vote
>>well below its Scottish parliament level.
>
>All the polls show that SNP support is higher than in 1997 but will continue
>to be lower in a Westminster context than in an Edinburgh context. But the
>real question is Labour apathy. The real reason the SNP did so well was
>because Labour didn't turn up to vote. In dozens of seats the SNP did
>increase their numerical vote by over 1000 in many places, but often the
>Labour vote was down 5000-10000. If this happens again, then we can expect a
>better night than four years ago.
I'm sure the Labour vote won't be down anything like that much in a GE.
Paul Hyett
keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>Scottish elections - just as it is in similar situations elsewhere in the
>world with local nationalist parties.
Only in by-elections, surely?
>Vote SNP at GE to squeeze the best
>deal for the local area out of national government, but don't vote for them
>at the local level.
The SNP has far more influence at SP level, so why do you say that?
>
>And by the way Paul. Did we have a deal on that Cheltenham bet?
>
Sorry, can you remind me?
Al
Oliver Vass <olive...@virgin.net> writes
>> which contradicts your assertion that more wanted him in than not in a
>> first past the post system.
>> Pillock.
>
>Not an assertion, a hypothesis.
>Twonk.
that's not the impression you gave.
erm ... have we had prune?
--
Al
Oliver Vass
My use of Hague (continuing your established example) confuses the issue.
In an electorate, a proportion of people don't care who governs them. They
don't vote. They will not then rise up in revolution if Party A is elected.
Those who voted for Party B (or C)- who lost- will not rise up in revolution
as they will recognise that more people than they can muster may rise
against them.
Once the party names are removed, I think you will agree that it is clearer,
and falsifies your expectation of a revolt in the event of Hague being
elected.
For the record (and as a repeat to my "Straw Poll" respose) I hope Labour
lose. Realistically I do not expect that to happen, I can only dream.
Prune?
David Freeland
There is some opinion poll evidence to suggest that turnout will be done,
much more than in England. It just remains to be seen who stays at home. At
the minute it might be more SNP voters. We'll need to wait 3-4 weeks to see
how it all turns out
Al
Oliver Vass <olive...@virgin.net> writes
>My use of Hague (continuing your established example) confuses the issue.
>In an electorate, a proportion of people don't care who governs them. They
>don't vote. They will not then rise up in revolution if Party A is elected.
>Those who voted for Party B (or C)- who lost- will not rise up in revolution
>as they will recognise that more people than they can muster may rise
>against them.
>Once the party names are removed, I think you will agree that it is clearer,
>and falsifies your expectation of a revolt in the event of Hague being
>elected.
>For the record (and as a repeat to my "Straw Poll" respose) I hope Labour
>lose. Realistically I do not expect that to happen, I can only dream.
>
>Prune?
and I think its quite possible that in a first past the post system,
where party b and c are very similar, and their combined vote far
outweighs party a, and party a either musters vast hatred or some
support, and only achieves about 37% of the vote in a 66% turnout, that
the populace will say "this government is illegitimate, most people
desperately don't want it, we only didn't tactically vote against it
because we were led to believe that there was no chance of it achieving
power".
yes, prune (that's hard talk in my neck of the woods)
--
Al
Paul Hyett
keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>
But it has the chance to do so. It could even get overall control of the
SP, whereas the best it could hope for at Westminster is maybe a dozen
MP's out of 659.
>
>Because to get the best deal for Scotland, you want to scare the bejasus
>out of Westminster parties.
No, just out of Labour, since they have far more to lose in Scotland
than the Tories do.
>
>About a year ago, you said that the sitting MP would lose; I said he
>wouldn't and gave reasons. I offered a bet; you equivocated.
Well I can't really take that bet, since I now agree that Nigel Jones
will probably hang on.
I don't suppose you can narrow the date down a bit though, so I can
check the Google archive to find out exactly what was said?
Chris Keating
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> What you're almost grasping is that Tony Blair is actually a Liberal
> Democrat
Err ... no.
Go and stand in the corner.
Chris Keating
Paul Hyett
keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>> check the Google archive to find out exactly what was said?
>
But mine are, and a good portion of your postings may be included in my
replies.
>In any
>case, you have clearly now changed your mind. I think he will "hang on"
>reasonably comfortably. Would you care to give a figure for the majority?
It'll be very close - probably less than 1000, possibly even a recount.
>
>I spent some considerable time trying to get you to put your money where
>your mouth was and your reluctance at the time indicated to me that you
>didn't have much faith in your then prediction. As I recall, it was based
>on the unpopularity of Lib Dem councillors.
>
Can you remember whether this was before or after the Andrew Pennington
sword tragedy?
Paul Hyett
keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >
>> sword tragedy?
>
>going to win.
The Tories will have been in control of the council for the best part of
two years too, so any screw-ups that come out will now reflect on them.
4noneoftheabove
http://www.4noneoftheabove.com
Visit this site and have your say. More and more people are doing so every
day...
Thom Baguley
> Opinion polls usually phone at random this removes the ex-directory factor,
> but does include the 'not on phone' factor ( which these days is
> statistically a very small number
No they don't. The big polls from Mori etc. use stratified sampling
(which is why they are so accurate).
Their main problem IMO is one of validity. Being asked by a pollster
is simply a different context from voting. This may lead to slightly
greater variability (evidence suggests not much, though) and some
bias (which the pollsters try to correct when they find it).
Thom
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
no-...@4noneoftheabove.com (4noneoftheabove) wrote:
> Feeling un-represented?
Under-represented
> Or are you content with our democratic system?
No
> http://www.4noneoftheabove.com
A cop out. Some of us pound the streets to bring change through the system
rather than take the easy option of this apathetic abstention.
When was the last time such a campaign achieved anything?
Ian
Quark
Since when did any representative have anything other than their own corrupt
self interest at heart?
Please don't reply that St Tony of Sincerity has my best interest at heart
when he lies about NHS Funding, fuel tax policy or how he really loves the
countryside (as long as its in Italy)
Lord Hague is no better (I'm in charge - ask those racists over there).
Accept that they're all lying hypocrites and select accordingly - bring on a
hung parliament and let the real debaters step forward.
MikeF
news:9dusrq$se1$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk...
> > Feeling un-represented?
> Under-represented
> > Or are you content with our democratic system?
> No
> > http://www.4noneoftheabove.com
> A cop out. Some of us pound the streets to bring change through the system
> rather than take the easy option of this apathetic abstention.
>
> When was the last time such a campaign achieved anything?
Surely you'd be better off, if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of
them, to blatantly spoil your ballot. At least then you get your ballot
counted, even if your vote doesn't.
In some senses I'd like a 're-open nominations' option, but I suspect the
elections would go on forever then...
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk
nor...@nowhere.com (Quark) wrote:
> Copping out changes as much as voting.
Since when?
> Since when did any representative have anything other than their own
> corrupt
> self interest at heart?
I would say many MPs do not fit the above the description and are
hard-working representatives of their constituencies
> Please don't reply that St Tony of Sincerity has my best interest at
> heart
> when he lies about NHS Funding, fuel tax policy or how he really loves
> the
> countryside (as long as its in Italy)
I wouldn't dream of it.
> Lord Hague is no better (I'm in charge - ask those racists over there).
I'm not disagreeing.
Ian
(Pounding the streets etc for neither the Labour nor Tory parties)
Wallace-Macpherson
ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <rXJM6.22520$tU6.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> nor...@nowhere.com (Quark) wrote:
(....)
>
> > Since when did any representative have anything other than their own
> > corrupt
> > self interest at heart?
>
> I would say many MPs do not fit the above the description and are
> hard-working representatives of their constituencies
>
> > Please don't reply that St Tony of Sincerity has my best interest at
> > heart
> > when he lies about NHS Funding, fuel tax policy or how he really loves
> > the
> > countryside (as long as its in Italy)
>
> I wouldn't dream of it.
>
> > Lord Hague is no better (I'm in charge - ask those racists over there).
>
> I'm not disagreeing.
>
> Ian
> (Pounding the streets etc for neither the Labour nor Tory parties)
Why not give a thought to lobbying for more real democracy?
While some MPs may genuinely try to represent their constituents it is
not easy to see how s/he can represent perhaps tens of thousands of
people across a the whole range of public issues. I have the experience
of living in a constituency with an MP from a party which I opposed on
most issues so for decades I was not represented at all.
A way to combat apathy is to show how people can participate in ways
which are meaningful, and which have some chance of success.
A well proven way to compensate for deficiencies of representation is
to expand the practice of direct voting on some issues. This could be
done by combining elements of direct democracy with the
party-parliamentary system which we have. The "initiative" starts a
public debate and puts a matter of public concern up for decision in
council or parliament. The referendum demand takes the proposal to all
fellow citizens, if parliament has turned down the people's wish.
Much can be learned from the way things have been done in Switzerland
for the last hundred or more years. More information can be found via
the links below.
Michael Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative I&R
http://iniref.tripod.com
Vote for more democracy at
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call