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
That's what they would have had to have voted in GE2015 for any change in voting intentions to be valid, that's not what has happened in this poll.
Otherwise I might as well commission a poll that has 100% labour voters and ask them which party you going to vote for then argue that 100% of the electorate want a Labour government.
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.
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.”[/I]
Because people are voting incorrectly.
It was a PR exercise designed to show how open the party is. Unfortunately they underestimated the mood of the public and over estimated their own popularity. They arrogantly assumed that Corbyn would be the joke candidate and exit in the first round. But seeing as the "joke" is leading the pack, they have to do something to derail him.
A case of putting out a fire by smothering it in petrol. So blatant have the attempts been to stop Corbyn. Including the changing of the rules, as you stated, during the contest. We're going to have a result, no matter who wins, that nobody respects. The new leader will always be tainted by allegations of a fixed ballot. Because the vote is being rigged.
I think it would have had a very different result.
Now you're talking about a bias in the way the question was phrased.
But that wouldn't mean the poll results for the question as phrased were wrong.
And that's very different from the sort of accusation you seemed to be making before, which involved "rigging" the result by including respondents you thought should be excluded.
There are no "accurate results" as no election has taken place since GE2015. What they've done is taken an answer and tried to find a formula to get to it with no correlation. The next election will show if they are accurate.
You don't think the bit they excluded at the end changes the complete tone of the speech?
Well, it doesn't.
It might make a difference to how some people responded, but it's far from completely changing the tone (and it also doesn't explain why Corbyn was calling them "friends", but then that never is explained).
Now you're talking about a bias in the way the question was phrased.
But that wouldn't mean the poll results for the question was phrased were wrong.
And that's very different from the sort of accusation you seemed to be making before, which involved "rigging" the result by including respondents you thought should be excluded.
I'm showing how polls are manipulated to show a certain bias on behalf of the commissioner. They either manipulate the sample base as in the case of today's ComRes result, or load the questions in the way the Survation poll has done. Which brings us back to the original issue that today's ComRes poll is hogwash.
I challenge you to find me a poll that directly conflicts with the agenda of the person who commissioned it.
There are no "accurate results" as no election has been done since GE2015. What they've done is taken an answer and tried to find a formula to get to it with no correlation. The next election will show if they are accurate.
The article that was quoted earlier explained in what sense the results were more accurate. Since this part of the discussion stemmed from that article, that's what I was talking about.
If they were deliberately "rigging" in the way you seem to be claiming, how would they have got better results?
And how does what you've been saying about quotas fit with what's in the linked article?
Why in any case should they be using such quotas?
I think there must be some better way to explain whatever point you're making.
Because people are voting incorrectly.
It was a PR exercise designed to show how open the party is. Unfortunately they underestimated the mood of the public and over estimated their own popularity. They arrogantly assumed that Corbyn would be the joke candidate and exit in the first round. But seeing as the "joke" is leading the pack, they have to do something to derail him.
A case of putting out a fire by smothering it in petrol. So blatant have the attempts been to stop Corbyn. Including the changing of the rules, as you stated, during the contest. We're going to have a result, no matter who wins, that nobody respects. The new leader will always be tainted by allegations of a fixed ballot. Because the vote is being rigged.
I don't think that they ever dreamed that Corbyn would even get enough endorsements to be a candidate.:D
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.”
They are weeding people out because they hadn't realised when they made the ridiculous decision to open the vote to anyone who paid £3 that the opening would be exploited by entryists and wreckers. Basically, they were fools.
I don't think that they ever dreamed that Corbyn would even get enough endorsements to be a candidate.:D
They did. But only in the interests of "broadening the field" and "having a debate" Not because all of his supporters actually wanted him as leader. He was meant to be this years Diane Abbot. There to keep the left happy and go out in the first round. Not to win in the first round.
They are weeding people out because they hadn't realised when they made the ridiculous decision to open the vote to anyone who paid £3 that the opening would be exploited by entryists and wreckers. Basically, they were fools.
Too late now. You can't change the rules midway through because you don't like the predicted outcome. Rightly or wrongly. The vetting/rigging has to end and the result made legitimate.
I'm showing how polls are manipulated to show a certain bias on behalf of the commissioner. They either manipulate the sample base as in the case of today's ComRes result, or load the questions in the way the Survation poll has done. Which brings us back to the original issue that today's ComRes poll is hogwash.
They didn't manipulate the sample base. If anything, excluding respondents because of quotas for Labour and Conservative voters would be more questionable, rather than less.
You started by saying the ComRes Voter Turnout Model biased their result, but when someone linked an article that explained that model, you seemed to switch to whatever this point is about quotas.
I don't think you've given any clear explanation of how this all fits together or precisely what you think ComRes is doing wrong.
And I ask again: do you think ComRes is deliberately using a methodology that they believe is bogus, but are using it anyway because it would bias the result? Or are you claiming something more vague?
I challenge you to find me a poll that directly conflicts with the agenda of the person who commissioned it.
I have seem many polls that do, but I'm not going to spend time searching for them.
Because people are voting incorrectly.
It was a PR exercise designed to show how open the party is. Unfortunately they underestimated the mood of the public and over estimated their own popularity. They arrogantly assumed that Corbyn would be the joke candidate and exit in the first round. But seeing as the "joke" is leading the pack, they have to do something to derail him.
A case of putting out a fire by smothering it in petrol. So blatant have the attempts been to stop Corbyn. Including the changing of the rules, as you stated, during the contest. We're going to have a result, no matter who wins, that nobody respects. The new leader will always be tainted by allegations of a fixed ballot. Because the vote is being rigged.
Corbyn still is the joke candidate. But even clowns are taken seriously by some people.
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader because they know he will be seen as a maverick.
So much for Tories thinking the guy was a dream ticket! its all coming out now. Should have guessed when The Telegraph and The Mail both backtracked!
Too late now. You can't change the rules midway through because you don't like the predicted outcome. Rightly or wrongly. The vetting/rigging has to end and the result made legitimate.
If the entryists and wreckers are allowed a vote, that result won't be legitimate.
Why can't you change the rules when you see that the rules are defective and are being exploited? It's not even changing the rules midway through. It was clear before voting began that they were going to try to exclude people who weren't genuine supporters.
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader because they know he will be seen as a maverick.
So much for Tories thinking the guy was a dream ticket! its all coming out now. Should have guessed when The Telegraph and The Mail both backtracked!
Why are you assuming that what the former advisor "seems to have let slip" is the truth?
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader because they know he will be seen as a maverick.
So much for Tories thinking the guy was a dream ticket! its all coming out now. Should have guessed when The Telegraph and The Mail both backtracked!
:D:D:D:D:D:D
I've said as much for weeks. This is going to be delicious.
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader because they know he will be seen as a maverick.
So much for Tories thinking the guy was a dream ticket! its all coming out now. Should have guessed when The Telegraph and The Mail both backtracked!
How is denial? You can say it over and over and over again, but Corbyn will be a disaster and everyone know its.
The Labourite behaviour is an absolute copy of the Tories in 2001. Feeling smug about having core vote candidate, dismissing claims otherwise.
Its a core vote comfort blanket as was described on TV. Corbyn is agreeable for the left, he makes you feel happy about the world. Just as IDS did with the right in 2001.
But Corbyn is every bit as unelectable in marginals that IDS was.
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader
Are you sure it's not a double bluff? Appear to leak information. Knowing that it'll encourage people to vote Corbyn. Corbyn being Cameron's preferred opponent. But is unable to say so openly for fear of encouraging the Burnham,Cooper, Kendell vote.
How is denial? You can say it over and over and over again, but Corbyn will be a disaster and everyone know its.
The Labourite behaviour is an absolute copy of the Tories in 2001. Feeling smug about having core vote candidate, dismissing claims otherwise.
Its a core vote comfort blanket as was described on TV. Corbyn is agreeable for the left, he makes you feel happy about the world. Just as IDS did with the right in 2001.
But Corbyn is every bit as unelectable in marginals that IDS was.
Are you sure it's not a double bluff? Appear to leak information. Knowing that it'll encourage people to vote Corbyn. Corbyn being Cameron's preferred opponent. But is unable to say so openly for fear of encouraging the Burnham,Cooper, Kendell vote.
They did openly encourage him, until they underestimated his popularity. That appears to have been what caused the senior Tories to change their minds. I'll find the link for you all. The guy claims the Tories were all for Corbyn winning until the night of the 3.5 thousand rally, then something changed their mood.
If the entryists and wreckers are allowed a vote, that result won't be legitimate.
Why can't you change the rules when you see that the rules are defective and are being exploited?
I don't know. Why can't you stop people from voting when the vote is going against your preferred outcome? There's a word for it. Demo..something. You won't find it in a Zimbabwean dictionary.
Comments
That's what they would have had to have voted in GE2015 for any change in voting intentions to be valid, that's not what has happened in this poll.
Otherwise I might as well commission a poll that has 100% labour voters and ask them which party you going to vote for then argue that 100% of the electorate want a Labour government.
Then why does it produce more accurate results?
Because people are voting incorrectly.
It was a PR exercise designed to show how open the party is. Unfortunately they underestimated the mood of the public and over estimated their own popularity. They arrogantly assumed that Corbyn would be the joke candidate and exit in the first round. But seeing as the "joke" is leading the pack, they have to do something to derail him.
A case of putting out a fire by smothering it in petrol. So blatant have the attempts been to stop Corbyn. Including the changing of the rules, as you stated, during the contest. We're going to have a result, no matter who wins, that nobody respects. The new leader will always be tainted by allegations of a fixed ballot. Because the vote is being rigged.
Wow. Okay I'm done.
Now you're talking about a bias in the way the question was phrased.
But that wouldn't mean the poll results for the question as phrased were wrong.
And that's very different from the sort of accusation you seemed to be making before, which involved "rigging" the result by including respondents you thought should be excluded.
There are no "accurate results" as no election has taken place since GE2015. What they've done is taken an answer and tried to find a formula to get to it with no correlation. The next election will show if they are accurate.
Well, it doesn't.
It might make a difference to how some people responded, but it's far from completely changing the tone (and it also doesn't explain why Corbyn was calling them "friends", but then that never is explained).
I'm showing how polls are manipulated to show a certain bias on behalf of the commissioner. They either manipulate the sample base as in the case of today's ComRes result, or load the questions in the way the Survation poll has done. Which brings us back to the original issue that today's ComRes poll is hogwash.
I challenge you to find me a poll that directly conflicts with the agenda of the person who commissioned it.
The article that was quoted earlier explained in what sense the results were more accurate. Since this part of the discussion stemmed from that article, that's what I was talking about.
If they were deliberately "rigging" in the way you seem to be claiming, how would they have got better results?
And how does what you've been saying about quotas fit with what's in the linked article?
Why in any case should they be using such quotas?
I think there must be some better way to explain whatever point you're making.
I don't think that they ever dreamed that Corbyn would even get enough endorsements to be a candidate.:D
They are weeding people out because they hadn't realised when they made the ridiculous decision to open the vote to anyone who paid £3 that the opening would be exploited by entryists and wreckers. Basically, they were fools.
They did. But only in the interests of "broadening the field" and "having a debate" Not because all of his supporters actually wanted him as leader. He was meant to be this years Diane Abbot. There to keep the left happy and go out in the first round. Not to win in the first round.
Too late now. You can't change the rules midway through because you don't like the predicted outcome. Rightly or wrongly. The vetting/rigging has to end and the result made legitimate.
They didn't manipulate the sample base. If anything, excluding respondents because of quotas for Labour and Conservative voters would be more questionable, rather than less.
You started by saying the ComRes Voter Turnout Model biased their result, but when someone linked an article that explained that model, you seemed to switch to whatever this point is about quotas.
I don't think you've given any clear explanation of how this all fits together or precisely what you think ComRes is doing wrong.
And I ask again: do you think ComRes is deliberately using a methodology that they believe is bogus, but are using it anyway because it would bias the result? Or are you claiming something more vague?
I have seem many polls that do, but I'm not going to spend time searching for them.
A former adviser to David Cameron seems to have let it slip Corbyn is the last option Cameron would have preferred as new Labour leader because they know he will be seen as a maverick.
If the entryists and wreckers are allowed a vote, that result won't be legitimate.
Why can't you change the rules when you see that the rules are defective and are being exploited? It's not even changing the rules midway through. It was clear before voting began that they were going to try to exclude people who weren't genuine supporters.
Why are you assuming that what the former advisor "seems to have let slip" is the truth?
I've said as much for weeks. This is going to be delicious.
The Labourite behaviour is an absolute copy of the Tories in 2001. Feeling smug about having core vote candidate, dismissing claims otherwise.
Its a core vote comfort blanket as was described on TV. Corbyn is agreeable for the left, he makes you feel happy about the world. Just as IDS did with the right in 2001.
But Corbyn is every bit as unelectable in marginals that IDS was.
Are you sure it's not a double bluff? Appear to leak information. Knowing that it'll encourage people to vote Corbyn. Corbyn being Cameron's preferred opponent. But is unable to say so openly for fear of encouraging the Burnham,Cooper, Kendell vote.
Because he still has close ties. If you go to Listen Again it should be there. About 2 hours ago. Was very interesting.
They did openly encourage him, until they underestimated his popularity. That appears to have been what caused the senior Tories to change their minds. I'll find the link for you all. The guy claims the Tories were all for Corbyn winning until the night of the 3.5 thousand rally, then something changed their mood.
I don't know. Why can't you stop people from voting when the vote is going against your preferred outcome? There's a word for it. Demo..something. You won't find it in a Zimbabwean dictionary.