General Election 2015

[Herr Tubthumper]

Have you just started reading the thread?
Ashcrofts polls have more advanced weightings to include what the actual may be not just what people say they will do. Others don't and so give a misleading view. This weighting had only started appearing in last month or two & other pollsters are behind the curve

See. I told you he is making the numbers up

 

[Soulman]

I contribute to the UK coffers so I should be able to have a say in how my taxes are spent.

Fair enough, i stand by what i said as the people that live here have to LIVE with the policies that are implemented, and the affects they bring.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's some interesting analysis of opinion polls knocking around based on what people say vs what people do
It's apparent on here also
It is proven over the last couple of years in dozens of polls & outcomes that there is a 'Shy Tory' factor that runs through every poll. In effect, 1 in 50 say they won't vote Tory but do & 1 in 50 say they will vote Labour in a poll but don't in the booth
What this means is that all polls underestimate Actual Tory votes by 2% & overestimate Labour also by 2%
So, a 33% Labour & 30% Tory poll will actually produce a 1% win for the Blues when the slips are counted

You haven't provided a link to such interesting analysis. The pollsters were last seriously caught out at a General Election in 1992. This was probably the result of the 'shy Tory' factor that you're referring to, and I was under the impression that they made adjustment to polls precisely because of this factor. Remember at the last GE, the exit poll was entirely accurate on the number of seats gained by Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. This suggests increased accuracy, and that they've overcome the 'shy Tory'/'garrulous Labour' factor.

 

[Buzzer]

You haven't provided a link to such interesting analysis.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...improve-labours-poll-performance-9988769.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...ddle-class-voters-will-finish-off-Labour.html

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

See. I told you he is making the numbers up

There is some truth behind the "Closet Tory" vote , Ashcroft maybe factoring them into his weightings.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There is some truth behind the "Closet Tory" vote , Ashcroft maybe factoring them into his weightings.

True. I can understand people being embarrassed about openly admitting to voting Tory.

 

[Stato]

Really?

If so he's put on quite an act on the numerous away days I've done with him to most far-flung corners of the country. I must have also been imagining seeing him in his season ticket spot at the Amex most games.

I obviously should have said 'talking about the Albion on here' Never assume...

 

[8ace]

[tweet]557666778139357185[/tweet]

 

[Stato]

These rules about who is and isn't allowed in what thread are getting complicated. Cunning Fergus shouldn't post in these threads that he has an interest in because although he's a Brighton fan who goes to games he doesn't post in other threads whereas HT is allowed to post about something non-Albion related that doesn't directly concern him because he shares your political outlook.

Any other rules we should be aware of or other posters who should steer clear of this thread?

I did not set myself up as rule maker, I merely bit at Fergus because he was posting in an underhand way, rather than stating his real views. I'm happy with the 'cut and thrust' he refers to, but I could do without being told to 'shove it up your tory arse' by somebody who, I would hazard a guess, voted for Thatcher. That's just playing silly games.

 

[Buzzer]

I obviously should have said 'talking about the Albion on here' Never assume...

Does that pass as an apology?

 

[Stato]

I'm happy to apologise for doubting his Albion credentials.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm happy to apologise for doubting his Albion credentials.

And for your suggestion that he's a BNP plant?

All a bit pathetic don't you think?

 

[Stato]

And for your suggestion that he's a BNP plant?

All a bit pathetic don't you think?

See my post #1428 above. I'm happy with a fair and open exchange of views. When everyone is being fair and open.

 

[Buzzer]

See my post #1428 above. I'm happy with a fair and open exchange of views. When everyone is being fair and open.

That'll be a 'no' then. Look matey, you called it wrong, made a big thing about it too and now you've not got the good manners simply to say an unequivocal 'sorry'. Poor show.

 

[Gwylan]

Ah, clever to lapse into foreign but get it wrong just to show that you're thoroughly British. Good show

(I'm only teasing: I suspect that CF's views are a bit similar to mine)

T
What this means is that all polls underestimate Actual Tory votes by 2% & overestimate Labour also by 2%
So, a 33% Labour & 30% Tory poll will actually produce a 1% win for the Blues when the slips are counted

A 1% win for the Tories would still give Labour a narrow majority

 

[Stato]

That'll be a 'no' then. Look matey, you called it wrong, made a big thing about it too and now you've not got the good manners simply to say an unequivocal 'sorry'. Poor show.

Take a moment to look at this objectively:

You are suggesting that mistakenly drawing conclusions about someone's political views from posts which are deliberately designed to obfuscate requires an apology.

You are not suggesting that an apology is necessary if views are deliberately misinterpreted in order to cause offence or point score.

This does not apply the same standards to both sides of the debate.

 

[Buzzer]

You're wriggling. Very poor show. Maybe in the morning, you'll have a change of heart. Night night.

 

[Stato]

You're wriggling. Very poor show. Maybe in the morning, you'll have a change of heart. Night night.

To me this translates as: "I won't look at it objectively. I won't address your point. I'll continue to assume my self-defined position of moral arbiter because it gives the impression that I have the upper hand in the debate."

From my experience of your previous posts, I had hoped for a more fair and honest response.

 

[Buzzer]

To me this translates as: "I won't look at it objectively. I won't address your point. I'll continue to assume my self-defined position of moral arbiter because it gives the impression that I have the upper hand in the debate."

From my experience of your previous posts, I had hoped for a more fair and honest response.

By 'objectively' it appears to mean 'agree with you'. Sorry but life doesn't always work like that and definitely not in this case.

And I'm not setting myself up as moral arbiter, I'll leave this to you in this thread, what with your strange rules about who can and can't post. I simply thought that seeing as you made some very odd comments that an apology might be in order. Not morals, just polite.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Never assume...

somebody who, I would hazard a guess, voted for Thatcher.

Hmmmm .......

Does that pass as an apology?

Nope, it's called back peddling.