Opinion Polls Discussion Thread (Part 3)

1101102104106107407

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium, what excuse do they have - the very good one that they put it to the vote of their party, and they didn't agree. I don't really see where there is a pressure for the LDs to team up with the Tories - who, exactly is going to stop voting for them if they don't? And how, would they lose votes if they didn't?
    jjne wrote: »
    I think they are lining themselves up to stitch the Conservatives up... and why shouldn't they?

    The Tories don't have a right to LD support... I think the LDs are quite right to say that if you want our support we'll gouge your eyes out, and if you're not happy with that then you can get stuffed -- see what happens when you try to go it alone.

    This idea that the LDs will just roll over on Friday is absurd. They are served better in opposition than a small number agreeing to everything a (much more Right-wing dominated) Tory party come up with, without significant returns.
    Pretty much this.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    I'm beginning to think that the pollster's calculations are all wrong and they are understating the Tories and overstating Labour. The Tories have delivered most of what they promised five years ago, the economy's looking great and within the last week a good 80% of Fleet Street are backing them to return to Downing Street.

    But.....why don't the current polls reflect these facts?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiomike wrote: »
    Ashcroft National Poll - 5 May

    CON 32 (-4)
    LAB 30 (-)
    LD 11 (+2)
    UKIP 12 (+1)
    Green 7 (-)

    One interesting titbit from the focus groups this week:-

    "One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be."

    Polls are now clearly being used to influence public opinion. In some ways they have taken the place of national newspapers in terms of influence.

    No wonder polls are the tool of choice of the rich and of political parties.

    They must be banned, perhaps within 6 months of an election at least.
  • SanguiniusSanguinius Posts: 1,723
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's going to be absolute chaos, we just don't know what the end outcome will be from all the chaos.

    Looking at the Ashcroft poll I can't see the Greens getting 7% nationally. But once again another poll that shows it's going to be neck and neck unless there is a late swing on polling day when people go the ballot boxes, have a deep think and change their mind.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ashcroft poll is out BTW:

    Ashcroft National Poll, 1-3 May: CON 32%, LAB 30%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 7%.

    LDs only one behind UKIP, Greens on 7%, both Labour and the Tories scoring quite low vote shares, and the Con lead down by 4, from 6 to 2 percentage points.
  • jjnejjne Posts: 6,580
    Forum Member
    heiker wrote: »
    I'm beginning to think that the pollster's calculations are all wrong and they are understating the Tories and overstating Labour. The Tories have delivered most of what they promised five years ago, the economy's looking great and within the last week a good 80% of Fleet Street are backing them to return to Downing Street.

    But.....why don't the current polls reflect these facts?

    This would be a disaster for the Conservatives of course.

    The nearer they are to the magic 325 number the more likely they are to want to go it alone.

    Such a government would be a re-run of the 92-97 one.... only it'll be worse, as there will be no excuse to get out of the EU referendum, you'll have the SNP shouting from the rooftops and would probably get another referendum, and the Tory 'bastards' are far more vitriolic than they were 20 years ago.

    They'd end up dependent on the DUP again, who are far less acquiescent than the UUP were in the 90s, and the Right of the Tory Party would be out for blood every week.

    Is that really what Tory supporters want?
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    It's hard to call. I get the feeling many LDs would rather not any coalition at all...

    So what would they want ?

    The ability to be able to snipe on the sidelines ?
  • Ellie_ArbuckleEllie_Arbuckle Posts: 548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I said it was obvious when Clegg started listing these red lines that they didn't want to coalition with the Tories. This is without factoring in the triple lock system and Menzie Campbell may have well just said yesterday on BBC news the Lib Dems would prefer Labour this time. He came within a wisper of saying it.

    The only reason talks stalled in 2010 between Labour and the Lib Dems is because Brown got sick of waiting and felt Clegg was using him to get a better deal from the Tories so conceded defeat. There is a great documentary on Youtube charting the five days in May 2010.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That many don't feel the second-placed party forming a government would be legitimate isn't surprising; most polling shows this. Furthermore, the public doesn't like coalitions, let alone liking a coalition of what they'll see as losers - despite it happening in Europe. That said, all Ashcroft is doing here is taking quotes out - he's not quantifying people's positions in percentage terms, which would at least give us a whole picture. As it is, I think it's less politically costly for Labour to simply let a Conservative minority government inevitably destroy itself, rather than risk trying for a minority government in which they'll be severely politically limited. Right now, no party is really going to be able to implement anywhere near their full programme looking at how the arithmetic is shaping up to being.
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Polls are now clearly being used to influence public opinion. In some ways they have taken the place of national newspapers in terms of influence.

    No wonder polls are the tool of choice of the rich and of political parties.

    They must be banned, perhaps within 6 months of an election at least.

    I find it bizarre that so many people don't actually understand the "swing" factor. People genuinely are voting UKIP because they think they will form a Government. Yet to form a Government they would need bigger swings throughout the entire UK than the SNP are achieving in Scotland alone. If they are going to be unhappy about the outcome then they only have themselves to blame. If they are saying they are going to be upset that Labour may govern through dealmongering, then the alternative is to vote Tory isn't it?

    Of course, not all will be unhappy but it seems odd that those who vote Tory or UKIP expecting Tory or UKIP are grumbling unnecessarily. They have the opportunity to vote wisely. No use crying once you've cast your vote.

    I agree with you about polls. Not necessarily about banning them, but just ONE collective poll each Sunday because this years polls are just dull and unexciting. I do think they are merely trying to encourage voters of their party of preference to vote.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    So what would they want ?

    The ability to be able to snipe on the sidelines ?

    The ability to regroup and revive their dismal political fortunes.
  • jjnejjne Posts: 6,580
    Forum Member
    SULLA wrote: »
    So what would they want ?

    The ability to be able to snipe on the sidelines ?

    Given the way the Tories are likely to go in minority, or wafer-thin majority, absolutely.

    The Tories will be tearing themselves to pieces a la 1995, and the LDs will be able to say -- quite correctly -- that this is what the 2010-15 government would have been like without their tempering influence.
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    jjne wrote: »
    This would be a disaster for the Conservatives of course.

    The nearer they are to the magic 325 number the more likely they are to want to go it alone.

    Such a government would be a re-run of the 92-97 one.... only it'll be worse, as there will be no excuse to get out of the EU referendum, you'll have the SNP shouting from the rooftops and would probably get another referendum, and the Tory 'bastards' are far more vitriolic than they were 20 years ago.

    They'd end up dependent on the DUP again, who are far less acquiescent than the UUP were in the 90s, and the Right of the Tory Party would be out for blood every week.

    Is that really what Tory supporters want?

    If we go back to May 2012, Labour were on 42% and the Tories on 32%. Three years later and Labour has dropped 10 points but none of those lost points have come the way of the Tories. I find that odd.
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjne wrote: »
    This would be a disaster for the Conservatives of course.

    The nearer they are to the magic 325 number the more likely they are to want to go it alone.

    Such a government would be a re-run of the 92-97 one.... only it'll be worse, as there will be no excuse to get out of the EU referendum, you'll have the SNP shouting from the rooftops and would probably get another referendum, and the Tory 'bastards' are far more vitriolic than they were 20 years ago.

    They'd end up dependent on the DUP again, who are far less acquiescent than the UUP were in the 90s, and the Right of the Tory Party would be out for blood every week.

    Is that really what Tory supporters want?

    BIB: Damn good question!

    What do I want? You know? I haven't got the foggiest. I can tell you what I don't want. I don't want Ed Balls as Chancellor. That prospect is the most terrifying thing of all. I am happy to accept the outcome if Labour can form some kind of majority. But Balls is a liability. But, what do I want regarding the Tories?

    I want them to ditch the 1922 Committee and modernise. I'd like them to try and recruit younger and more "real" candidates. They do have some sound policies but some of their party members are so Dickensian in their views that it makes me feel embarrassed to hear their views sometimes. That said, of course I would have liked them in Government, but whoever is in Government this time around is likely not going to be popular come the next election. It would certainly be easier for The Tories to be in opposition and get their house in order. Whether they will or not, is a completely different ball game!
  • heikerheiker Posts: 7,029
    Forum Member
    wizzywick wrote: »
    I find it bizarre that so many people don't actually understand the "swing" factor. People genuinely are voting UKIP because they think they will form a Government. Yet to form a Government they would need bigger swings throughout the entire UK than the SNP are achieving in Scotland alone. If they are going to be unhappy about the outcome then they only have themselves to blame. If they are saying they are going to be upset that Labour may govern through dealmongering, then the alternative is to vote Tory isn't it?

    Of course, not all will be unhappy but it seems odd that those who vote Tory or UKIP expecting Tory or UKIP are grumbling unnecessarily. They have the opportunity to vote wisely. No use crying once you've cast your vote.

    I agree with you about polls. Not necessarily about banning them, but just ONE collective poll each Sunday because this years polls are just dull and unexciting. I do think they are merely trying to encourage voters of their party of preference to vote.

    How about banning any Polling Company from posting results in the 30 days prior to election day if they fail to provide a forecast for the 2015 GE that is acceptably accurate
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 12,139
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    BIB: Damn good question!

    What do I want? You know? I haven't got the foggiest. I can tell you what I don't want. I don't want Ed Balls as Chancellor. That prospect is the most terrifying thing of all. I am happy to accept the outcome if Labour can form some kind of majority. But Balls is a liability. But, what do I want regarding the Tories?

    I want them to ditch the 1922 Committee and modernise. I'd like them to try and recruit younger and more "real" candidates. They do have some sound policies but some of their party members are so Dickensian in their views that it makes me feel embarrassed to hear their views sometimes. That said, of course I would have liked them in Government, but whoever is in Government this time around is likely not going to be popular come the next election. It would certainly be easier for The Tories to be in opposition and get their house in order. Whether they will or not, is a completely different ball game!

    Agree about Ed Balls but is it given that he gets the job if Labour get in and could the Lib Dems say that for our support Balls doesn't become Chancellor
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Could Cameron play a very clever game here though?

    Friday Morning: The Tories on 296 seats, Labour on 258 seats. Cameron says:

    "The country has voted and made it clear they are unhappy with politicians in the UK. However, it is certain that, because the Conservatives got the biggest vote share and the most seats, that the British people want us to continue to strengthen our economy and to create even more jobs and to ensure your hard earned money is kept in your pocket for you to spend on whatever you like.

    We invite any party to work with us to ensure Britain remains a country that has a good economy, prospects for all and to ensure those who need the help the most will get it.

    We will do our best to serve you well and as we didn't get a majority, we will put our plans to the house and only those who want to disrespect the electorates wishes, only those who want to wreak havoc on our electoral system, only those that see the benefit of the few over the benefit of the majority will dare to bring us down!"

    How likely is a speech like that?
    there would still remain a majority of House (aka representing the wishes of the electorate) who would not share the Tory vision, and would probably oppose the Queen's Speech. The best that Cameron could hope for would be many abstentions.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    heiker wrote: »
    If we go back to May 2012, Labour were on 42% and the Tories on 32%. Three years later and Labour has dropped 10 points but none of those lost points have come the way of the Tories. I find that odd.

    They seem to have gone to the smaller parties (UKIP, Green) and the Nationalist (SNP etc)
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    heiker wrote: »
    How about banning any Polling Company from posting results in the 30 days prior to election day if they fail to provide a forecast for the 2015 GE that is acceptably accurate

    I just think there's way too many polls this time around. Of course the polls are reflecting public opinion, but public opinion may well be affected by election fatigue. They no longer seem relevant, and if they are proved wrong, that point will be shown as fact!
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wizzywick wrote: »
    Well everyone is going to lose the election aren't they? In his eyes, he will believe, that with more seats and more votes than anyone else, he will have "won" or at least be entitled to try and form a Government. Why wouldn't he be feisty?
    You could also say that those who did not vote Tory/those who are represented by parties other than Tory, represent the majority.

    And after all, with the current FPTP system, or PR, the country will have to get used to coalitions, minority governments and multi-party alliances forming the majortity. it;s pretty much commonplace on the continent
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjne wrote: »
    No party has a majority mandate on less than 50% of the vote.

    Tory and Labour supporters should stop their whining and thank their lucky stars that the system favours them.

    It is completely ridiculous for any party to assume they have the will of the people, when not only do they fail to gain a majority of the vote, but they also fail to gain a majority of the seats in a system specifically set up to ensure that one or other of them always does.

    Don't forget that FPTP relies only upon seats won in the House, not votes cast. Until that changes, the reality is that vote share is pretty much irrelevant (except for those who wish to argue the toss about legitimacy)..
  • AlbacomAlbacom Posts: 34,578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    You could also say that those who did not vote Tory/those who are represented by parties other than Tory, represent the majority.

    And after all, with the current FPTP system, or PR, the country will have to get used to coalitions, minority governments and multi-party alliances forming the majortity. it;s pretty much commonplace on the continent

    So, you don't share the opinion that this hung parliament era is just a periodical blip and that come 2020 a majority single Government will return?

    If we compare our parliament to Europe, how similar are they? What are the party leanings? Left or right or both? Because if we did have to get used to European style Governments, then all parties are going to have to grow testicles and work with parties you might not like. But it will take several years or decades for that to happen because the LibDem supporters are still throwing their toys out of the pram that they joined a Tory coalition.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Radiomike wrote: »
    Ashcroft National Poll - 5 May

    CON 32 (-4)
    LAB 30 (-)
    LD 11 (+2)
    UKIP 12 (+1)
    Green 7 (-)

    One interesting titbit from the focus groups this week:-

    "One possible outcome is that Labour could form a government with the help of other parties, even if it comes second to the Conservatives in terms of both votes and seats. Most did not realise such an outcome was even possible, and many – including many who planned to vote Labour – were indignant at the idea: “They would have cheated their way in”; “It would be underhand. Not what the public wanted, not what the public said”; “It’s dealmongering, moving away from democracy”; “If that happened, at the next election, I’d think, what’s the point of voting?” Not everyone was exercised about it – but so many felt so strongly that it suggested such a government would have a job persuading the public of its political legitimacy, however constitutionally permissible it might be."
    A pity that some news organisation does not inform them of the accepted processes that are in place, and the requirements of the Fixed Parliament Act.

    And something else, I cannot understand this oft-repeated idea that the electorate can somehow speak with one voice when casting their vote in a General Election (implying that they vote with a single mind, as a single entity). They don't
  • Ellie_ArbuckleEllie_Arbuckle Posts: 548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    A pity that some news organisation does not inform them of the accepted processes that are in place, and the requirements of the Fixed Parliament Act.

    And something else, I cannot understand this oft-repeated idea that the electorate can somehow speak with one voice when casting their vote in a General Election (implying that they vote with a single mind, as a single entity). They don't

    The left wing media are making it perfectly clear its the party who can command a majority by any means that is the largest party and is therefor expected to form a government. As per the constitution.

    Its the right wing media who aren't saying any of this because it doesn't suit their agenda.
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 12,139
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How many of these polls are what called now casts rather than forecasts is how many ask if the election had been on the day the poll was carried out rather than how they were planning on voting in the election - so most polls are just mood music
This discussion has been closed.