it now seems 60,000 votes have been rejected already - thats 10%.
Its wide open now for those people to challenge why they were excluded , and to ask why others were not excluded.
They don't know how many more need excluding on their own criteria - and they are now saying they will look at as many as they can- before they run out of time. Thats a definition of a random, unfair and unreliable proceedure. We didn't have time to do it properly, isn't much of a legal defence.
Their legal advice is they need to verify more, but the only proposal is to use canvassing returns to determine who is an infiltrator. That leaves them with an unproveable data base and even more legal problems. Their vote is either wide open to inflitration, or verification by something inherently not relaible.
Kendall has suggested they esclude BNP supporters , but you cant ignore TUSC, and exclude BNP .
They can't argue there's no problem- as they have already thrown thousands outas infiltrators and 60,000 for unknown reasons. Their own lawyers reportedly have told them the process is legally open to challenge, so they can't argue they didn't know, or there's no grounds for one.
Is any judge going to say the end vote is a reliable reflection of anything much? Can you have rules that have no meaning, and can't be enforced?
The article clearly states that the 60,000 were removed as part of an administrative clear up (duplicate memberships, unpaid dues, not on electoral roll), not for political reasons. The figure for that still stands at 3,000.
The vast, vast majority of people voting in this election will be either be confirmed Labour party members, trade union members or affiliates with no obvious history of opposing the Labour party.
The article clearly states that the 60,000 were removed as part of an administrative clear up (duplicate memberships, unpaid dues, not on electoral roll), not for political reasons. The figure for that still stands at 3,000.
The vast, vast majority of people voting in this election will be either be confirmed Labour party members, trade union members or affiliates with no obvious history of opposing the Labour party.
How do the non-members who paid £3 to be "supporters" fit into that?
The article clearly states that the 60,000 were removed as part of an administrative clear up (duplicate memberships, unpaid dues, not on electoral roll), not for political reasons. The figure for that still stands at 3,000.
The vast, vast majority of people voting in this election will be either be confirmed Labour party members, trade union members or affiliates with no obvious history of opposing the Labour party.
When the conservatives have driven the weak and vulnerable into the ground perhaps come the 2030 general election the country would have had enough and then another party though perhaps not labour may be given the chance to form a government that chooses to govern for all parts of society and not just the chosen few. IMHO.
Labour are finished. Probably down to their own doing. But this country badly needs a opposition that can hold this government to account. Do we really want to end up a one party state
Seriously we have heard this nonsense just about every time the Labour party have been in opposition.
I did not say it was unbiased, I said it wasn't biased in favour of Jeremy Corbyn, because I remembered it as a Sky poll, now that we know it was commissioned by the TSSA it can be assumed to be biased in favour of Jeremy Corbyn, this all ties in with my original point that yes, polls are usually biased towards the whims of those commissioning them.
Even I'm getting confused now
So, the point is this - As the TSSA commissioned the poll, you claim that it would be biased in favour of Labour/Corbyn (as the TSSA also endorsed him). That would, by definition, either overstate his support, or understate the support of the others.
The obvious conclusion therefore is that the situation for Labour and/or Corbyn is actually worse than what the poll shows.
So, the point is this - As the TSSA commissioned the poll, you claim that it would be biased in favour of Labour/Corbyn (as the TSSA also endorsed him). That would, by definition, either overstate his support, or understate the support of the others.
The obvious conclusion therefore is that the situation for Labour and/or Corbyn is actually worse than what the poll shows.
Can't we just all agree that all polling is pretty suspect at the moment? Until they work out what went wrong in the general election there's huge question markets about all their results.
It's only suspect if it disagrees with your point of view
So, the point is this - As the TSSA commissioned the poll, you claim that it would be biased in favour of Labour/Corbyn (as the TSSA also endorsed him). That would, by definition, either overstate his support, or understate the support of the others.
The obvious conclusion therefore is that the situation for Labour and/or Corbyn is actually worse than what the poll shows.
But as that isn't the conclusion they want it can safely be ignored because its biased
I'm finding it hard to work out quite what your accusation is.
Do you think ComRes wasn't using their own methodology (as described in that article) but instead a different one that "riggs" in a bias towards the Tories?
This is two different issues, the methodology assumes those less affluent won't vote as they say, like it or not this would work against the Labour and hence creates a bias.
Why should they have to remove that 11% in order to get a valid result?
For the results of the poll to be valid the sample base for the poll has to be as close to the past general election as possible, if you're putting more Tories in the poll than the same quota that voted Tory in GE2015, you're tipping the scales, making the result invalid that's why you need to get rid of the 11% anomaly or disregard their selection or your poll is invalid.
I would like a clear and direct statement on the following issue:
Do you think ComRes is deliberately using methods they believe are dubious, but are using them anyway because they want to get results that falsely favour the Tories?
You clearly do not have a clue. If any polling company were found to be "biasing" their results in any way, shape or form they would be out of business by the following morning.
These companies carry out polling in many areas outside of politics and no reputable business would spend any money with them if they could not get reliable and accurate results as they are basing multi-million pound decisions on the outcomes.
Nearly all polls are biased in favour of those who commissioned them. They're tool used to push an agenda. I can show you a quick example if you like.
If I were commissioning a poll at great expense to myself I would want an honest truthful uncontaminated result. Otherwise why did TSSA commission it?
Here is Q5 from last week Survations poll commissioned by The Jewish Chronicle
Q5. Labour Party MP Jeremy Corbyn made the following statement at an event in Parliament, which i will quickly read to you.
‘First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah speaking today. As far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world’.
Regarding this statement, are you? Concerned Or Unconcerned
Understandably it result was 82.6% Concerned, 9.2% Unconcerned and 8.2% Neither concerned/nor unconcerned.
However the full quote was...
"First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah. So far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world, so that we can promote that peace, that understanding, and that dialogue"
I think it would have had a very different result.
Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee, prompting fears that the contest could be sabotaged by political opponents.
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
If I were commissioning a poll at great expense to myself I would want an honest truthful uncontaminated result. Otherwise why did TSSA commission it?
And if it is well known and accepted that the independent polling organisations will add the necessary bias to any poll, why are organisations throwing money at those same polling organisations for something that they, and everyone else, knows is flawed?
Here is Q5 from last week Survations poll commissioned by The Jewish Chronicle
Q5. Labour Party MP Jeremy Corbyn made the following statement at an event in Parliament, which i will quickly read to you.
‘First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah speaking today. As far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world’.
Regarding this statement, are you? Concerned Or Unconcerned
Understandably it result was 82.6% Concerned, 9.2% Unconcerned and 8.2% Neither concerned/nor unconcerned.
However the full quote was...
"First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah. So far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world, so that we can promote that peace, that understanding, and that dialogue"
I think it would have had a very different result.
And if it is well known and accepted that the independent polling organisations will add the necessary bias to any poll, why are organisations throwing money at those same polling organisations for something that they, and everyone else, knows is flawed?
But they don't, all reputable polling organisations would soon be out of business if they were found to be biased. Their competitors would soon name and shame them.
This is two different issues, the methodology assumes those less affluent won't vote as they say, like it or not this would work against the Labour and hence creates a bias.
The second issue..
For the results of the poll to be valid the sample base for the poll has to be as close to the past general election as possible, if you're putting more Tories in the poll than the same quota that voted Tory in GE2015, you're tipping the scales, making the result invalid that's why you need to get rid of the 11% anomaly or disregard their selection or your poll is invalid.
So if your sample is going to comprise of 36% Conservative voters and 32% Labour voters with "others" making up the remainder whats the point in holding the poll as you already know they answer
And if it is well known and accepted that the independent polling organisations will add the necessary bias to any poll, why are organisations throwing money at those same polling organisations for something that they, and everyone else, knows is flawed?
To add validity to an agenda. "Look most people agree with me, even though my welfare cuts are driving disabled people to suicide"
But they don't, all reputable polling organisations would soon be out of business if they were found to be biased. Their competitors would soon name and shame them.
So the ComRes Voter Turnout model now gives a more accurate figure, which is not what you suggested. If anything, the old ComRes polling was underestimating Conservative support. Now it is correct.
Of course I read it. Did you read my post about 11% of those polled not revealing who they voted for in the general election, when they had already gotten the representative quota of Tory & Labour voters?
So how does what you're saying there connect with what's in the article?
...
For the results of the poll to be valid the sample base for the poll has to be as close to the past general election as possible, if you're putting more Tories in the poll than the same quota that voted Tory in GE2015, you're tipping the scales, making the result invalid that's why you need to get rid of the 11% anomaly or disregard their selection or your poll is invalid.
How does what you're saying there connect with what's in the article?
Do you think the methodology described in the article includes quotas?
How do you explain the turnout model giving a more accurate result?
Comments
The article clearly states that the 60,000 were removed as part of an administrative clear up (duplicate memberships, unpaid dues, not on electoral roll), not for political reasons. The figure for that still stands at 3,000.
The vast, vast majority of people voting in this election will be either be confirmed Labour party members, trade union members or affiliates with no obvious history of opposing the Labour party.
How do the non-members who paid £3 to be "supporters" fit into that?
^^BIB
So, the point is this - As the TSSA commissioned the poll, you claim that it would be biased in favour of Labour/Corbyn (as the TSSA also endorsed him). That would, by definition, either overstate his support, or understate the support of the others.
The obvious conclusion therefore is that the situation for Labour and/or Corbyn is actually worse than what the poll shows.
Yet they still refuse to die , can't we just send them to Dignitas
Exactly.:D
It's only suspect if it disagrees with your point of view
Apparently.
But as that isn't the conclusion they want it can safely be ignored because its biased
Is that what you meant by "trade union members or affiliates"?
Anyway, what percentage of those voting are in this £3 category?
This is two different issues, the methodology assumes those less affluent won't vote as they say, like it or not this would work against the Labour and hence creates a bias.
The second issue..
For the results of the poll to be valid the sample base for the poll has to be as close to the past general election as possible, if you're putting more Tories in the poll than the same quota that voted Tory in GE2015, you're tipping the scales, making the result invalid that's why you need to get rid of the 11% anomaly or disregard their selection or your poll is invalid.
Nearly all polls are biased in favour of those who commissioned them. They're tool used to push an agenda. I can show you a quick example if you like.
Go on then.
If I were commissioning a poll at great expense to myself I would want an honest truthful uncontaminated result. Otherwise why did TSSA commission it?
Here is Q5 from last week Survations poll commissioned by The Jewish Chronicle
Q5. Labour Party MP Jeremy Corbyn made the following statement at an event in Parliament, which i will quickly read to you.
‘First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah speaking today. As far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world’.
Regarding this statement, are you? Concerned Or Unconcerned
Understandably it result was 82.6% Concerned, 9.2% Unconcerned and 8.2% Neither concerned/nor unconcerned.
However the full quote was...
"First of all I want to thank everyone who is here tonight. Tomorrow evening will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I have also invited friends from Hamas to speak as well, unfortunately the Israelis will not allow them to arrive here so it is only going to be Hezbollah. So far as I am concerned that is absolutely the right function of using Parliamentary facilities to invite people from other parts of the world, so that we can promote that peace, that understanding, and that dialogue"
I think it would have had a very different result.
Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee, prompting fears that the contest could be sabotaged by political opponents.
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
And if it is well known and accepted that the independent polling organisations will add the necessary bias to any poll, why are organisations throwing money at those same polling organisations for something that they, and everyone else, knows is flawed?
I don't agree.
You don't think the bit they excluded at the end changes the complete tone of the speech?
But they don't, all reputable polling organisations would soon be out of business if they were found to be biased. Their competitors would soon name and shame them.
So if your sample is going to comprise of 36% Conservative voters and 32% Labour voters with "others" making up the remainder whats the point in holding the poll as you already know they answer
No it doesn't.
To add validity to an agenda. "Look most people agree with me, even though my welfare cuts are driving disabled people to suicide"
The other one appears later.
So how do you explain the turnout model giving a more accurate result?
So how does what you're saying there connect with what's in the article?
For instance:
How does what you're saying there connect with what's in the article?
Do you think the methodology described in the article includes quotas?
How do you explain the turnout model giving a more accurate result?