ChatterBank2 mins ago
Looks Like The Labour Supporters Have Forgotten This Site....
10 Answers
http://
quoted by a certain ABer almost daily a year ago, it seems to have fallen out of favour, can't imagine why.
quoted by a certain ABer almost daily a year ago, it seems to have fallen out of favour, can't imagine why.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
I think I can suggest a reason: it was a load of b*ll*cks :-)
21:15 Sun 03rd Jan 2016
...plus we're several years away from the next general election. Added to which the current Labour leadership plainly doesn't care about opinion polls, they only seem bothered about how great many die hard Labour folk think they are. The Tories assume they are a shoo-in, so why should they care, and the Lib Dems and UKIP daren't look :-)
It was mainly Mikey, although I was paying a fair amount of attention to it too.
As it happens, ickieria's being more than a little harsh to call the site "a load of "b*ll*cks", and TTT appears to be demonstrating his usual nuanced understanding of political science. In the first place, electoralcalculus is not a polling organisation. Instead it took the outputs of opinion polls published by other organisations and fed those numbers into a model to produce predictions based on individual constituency results. Problem is that the polls turned out to be off by far enough to make the model sophistication largely irrelevant: "Garbage in, garbage out", which is a common enough phrase in computer programming. The model used by the site was tested after the election using the actual results and came up with a new 'prediction' that was correct in predicting the seat results for 624/650 seats, with 21 of the wrongly-predicted seats having majorities of less than 5%. Given TTT's favourite comment about our current system, that percentages do not equal seats, getting such a large proportion of the constituency results correct based on national percentages suggests quite a decent model, actually. The problem electoralcalculus, and everyone else, faced was that the polling was so badly wrong, but that wasn't really in their hands.
As it happens, ickieria's being more than a little harsh to call the site "a load of "b*ll*cks", and TTT appears to be demonstrating his usual nuanced understanding of political science. In the first place, electoralcalculus is not a polling organisation. Instead it took the outputs of opinion polls published by other organisations and fed those numbers into a model to produce predictions based on individual constituency results. Problem is that the polls turned out to be off by far enough to make the model sophistication largely irrelevant: "Garbage in, garbage out", which is a common enough phrase in computer programming. The model used by the site was tested after the election using the actual results and came up with a new 'prediction' that was correct in predicting the seat results for 624/650 seats, with 21 of the wrongly-predicted seats having majorities of less than 5%. Given TTT's favourite comment about our current system, that percentages do not equal seats, getting such a large proportion of the constituency results correct based on national percentages suggests quite a decent model, actually. The problem electoralcalculus, and everyone else, faced was that the polling was so badly wrong, but that wasn't really in their hands.
There was nobody more surprised about the result of the Election than Dave Cameron !
The site may have got the partition between Labour and the Tories wrong but it was bang on the button regarding the SNP, LibDems and UKIP, especially the latter.
The reason that they and other Pollsters got it so wrong was that they seriously underestimated the number of people that were ashamed to admit that they really supported the Tories.
The site may have got the partition between Labour and the Tories wrong but it was bang on the button regarding the SNP, LibDems and UKIP, especially the latter.
The reason that they and other Pollsters got it so wrong was that they seriously underestimated the number of people that were ashamed to admit that they really supported the Tories.
I am a bit confused here, is the site link mentioned in the OP, the same site that mikey quoted regularly in the past 4 years...Electoral College Seats or some such name?
If so, then i do not know if it was b.llo..s or not.......I could never understand it.
mikey just quoted the conclusions on a regular basis which was perfectly reasonable.
However, my main concern would have been and indeed was, why Labour had blown a 14point lead over a period of 5 years whilst the Tory/Lib Dem alliance was apparently making a mess of the country.
Shouldn't we try and keep Politics simple?
If so, then i do not know if it was b.llo..s or not.......I could never understand it.
mikey just quoted the conclusions on a regular basis which was perfectly reasonable.
However, my main concern would have been and indeed was, why Labour had blown a 14point lead over a period of 5 years whilst the Tory/Lib Dem alliance was apparently making a mess of the country.
Shouldn't we try and keep Politics simple?
I was being more than a little tongue in cheek with the 'b*ll*cks' description, especially as for me the polls were probably not that inaccurate in giving a current picture, just or very good at predicting voting on the day as plainly a lot of people either had not made up their minds or changed them.
But it is not had to see why no one is paying much attention to polls just now
But it is not had to see why no one is paying much attention to polls just now
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
This 'Bad Actor ' Trying To Harm Reform.
News22 mins ago
Jobs & Education26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.