Red C Poll

joe912

First Up wrote: »

Oh we know who you mean.

The myth that Greece was going to "show balls" and strike a deal that would embarrass the Irish govt was the motivation behind this thread and is the sort of nonsense that was seized upon by the shinners among others.

That myth has been well and truly debunked so if you want a stick to beat the govt, you need something a bit better.

The short term results on Greece are irrelevant they were in the **** and they still are. It will take a long time before we see if standing up to those who control the e.u or bowing down to them is the better choice. I have a feeling history will not look kindly on enda Kenny and his government.

Jawgap

joe912 wrote: »

it would be some seismic change for any of the established parties to put the national interests first.
we would really need to see the proposed radical reforms to governance that f.g promised before the last election to become a reality, if we even knew what them reforms might be.
realistically the only hope for governance in the people and nations best interest is an end to party politics and a system whereby we vote directly for the position for Taoiseach and ministers based on what they personally want to achieve and how they plan to deliver.

Voting for the executive? It's tried in other countries - you'd be hard pushed to find one that is measurably better.

Plus who would fund these peoples' election campaigns - in other words they'd still be beholden to their supporters and would still dispense patronage to them rather than in the national interest.

Jawgap

joe912 wrote: »

conorh91 wrote: »

Democracy operates according to the basic thesis that Parliament and the Government fear electoral backlash, and will obey the public mood for fear of a backlash.

All opinion polls do, is to provide the parliament and the Government with more empirical and exact gauge of the public mood.

Without opinion polls, rulers will resort to guesswork, and may even become too conservative, failing to act at all for fear of the imagined consequences.

Polls are democratic instruments. Yes, they can be too populist, and for that reason I share your wariness of them to an extent. However, I think life without opinion polls would be even less desirable.

My only concern relates to methodological transparency and the integrity of this very influential data.[/QUOTE]

this is the crucial bit surely whomever commissions the survey will manipulate it to get the desired result. The public mood rarely relates to the national interest.

My guess is the party's internal polling data is consistent with the published polls or they'd be howling about it.

First Up

joe912 wrote: »

The short term results on Greece are irrelevant they were in the **** and they still are. It will take a long time before we see if standing up to those who control the e.u or bowing down to them is the better choice. I have a feeling history will not look kindly on enda Kenny and his government.

It depends what you mean by short term but those who were predicting that Syriza was going to plant a bomb (I'm choosing my metaphors carefully) under FG/ Lab that would impact on our next election have gone a bit quiet.

I think history will form its own opinion, without help from polls or bloggers of whatever persuasion or agenda.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

It depends what you mean by short term but those who were predicting that Syriza was going to plant a bomb (I'm choosing my metaphors carefully) under FG/ Lab that would impact on our next election have gone a bit quiet.

I think history will form its own opinion, without help from polls or bloggers of whatever persuasion or agenda.

I think Syriza have been a factor alright. Nobody here wants to end up like Greece no matter how annoyed you are with your lot.

alaimacerc

joe912 wrote: »

realistically the only hope for governance in the people and nations best interest is an end to party politics and a system whereby we vote directly for the position for Taoiseach and ministers based on what they personally want to achieve and how they plan to deliver.

Essentially that's a Presidential system. (As in the US or French models. Rather than the "parliamentary republic with a president that's required to be able to use a knife and fork" one, a la Ireland, Germany.) Or some sort of hybrid, as Israel briefly tried. Any precedents that inspire any particular confidence?

The main variable I think is the strength of the parties vs local strokes for local folks. Ireland's somewhat in the middle of the obvious international comparitors there. If you want the government to be more responsive the electorate on policy grounds (as against "response time to get my pothole fixed"), you'd probably want the parties to be stronger. Which is in many ways the opposite conclusion that many of the electorate are coming to...

Brian Shanahan

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

New Red C poll for SBP shows FG and Lab +3, SF -3, FF no change.

The trend continues

Is that before or after correcting for the undecideds?

Godge

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Is that before or after correcting for the undecideds?

Same as in all the other polls.

Brian Shanahan

Godge wrote: »

Same as in all the other polls.

Not an answer to my question.

alaimacerc

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Not an answer to my question.

Well, riddle me this, then. What's 27+10+18+17+28?

It was a better answer than it was question, really. What does "correcting for" the undecideds mean, precisely? If you wanted an explanation in essay form of the pretty-much-standard way these numbers are reported...

A better question might be "how to 'correct for' the supposedly-intending independent voter". My idea that "treat as 'undecided' until proven otherwise" doesn't seem to be too popular, though.

Undecideds were 13%, btw.

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, riddle me this, then. What's 27+10+18+17+28?

It was a better answer than it was question, really. What does "correcting for" the undecideds mean, precisely? If you wanted an explanation in essay form of the pretty-much-standard way these numbers are reported...

A better question might be "how to 'correct for' the supposedly-intending independent voter". My idea that "treat as 'undecided' until proven otherwise" doesn't seem to be too popular, though.

Undecideds were 13%, btw.

Historically 13% is extremely low for this stage of the electoral cycle.

I still believe that "independents/others" contains a lot of don't knows.

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

Historically 13% is extremely low for this stage of the electoral cycle.

It'd be suspiciously low at any stage. Notably, compared to "not actually bothered about voting at all".

I still believe that "independents/others" contains a lot of don't knows.

And some "can't be arsed, but don't want to seem a fool to the nice researcher", and some "I won't admit to voting for the local FF/FG stroke-puller, but sure, doesn't s/he do a lot of good for the area." And indeed, some "I'd like the moon on a stick, and am imagining the candidate who'll promise me it".

If someone told me they were voting for an indie, I'd consider taking them in the least seriously if they were about to name the person they'd be voting for. Or maybe the "grouping" they belonged to (or they'd like this potentially imaginary person to belong to). Or even what policies they wanted to vote for.

RomanKnows

It's a very positive result for the Government parties. Things are really looking up and we didn't have to tell the EU to feck off, leave the Euro, or have a revolution. It's terrible news for that rump of society who just want to watch the world burn.

Brussels Sprout

Interesting to see both the Greens and Renua on 2%. I'd say they'd both be privately happy with that at the moment.

alaimacerc

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Interesting to see both the Greens and Renua on 2%. I'd say they'd both be privately happy with that at the moment.

All depends on how that's looking like translating to seats. Scant comfort if it's 2% in every constituency. If they each got three seats (roughly proportionate), I think they'd be exhilarated beyond their wildest expectations.

First Up

alaimacerc wrote: »

All depends on how that's looking like translating to seats. Scant comfort if it's 2% in every constituency. If they each got three seats (roughly proportionate), I think they'd be exhilarated beyond their wildest expectations.

Hard to get a quota off a 2% base. Need to be awfully transfer friendly, or have a couple of "star" candidates who can get elected on a personal vote.

Quin_Dub

First Up wrote: »

Hard to get a quota off a 2% base. Need to be awfully transfer friendly, or have a couple of "star" candidates who can get elected on a personal vote.

Renuas only cast-iron seat in Creighton.. the other sitting TD's might get re-elected but not 100% certain..

Timmins might get in as there's a strong family history there , but how much he'll lose by not having the FG infrastructure behind him remains to be seen

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, riddle me this, then. What's 27+10+18+17+28?

It was a better answer than it was question, really. What does "correcting for" the undecideds mean, precisely? If you wanted an explanation in essay form of the pretty-much-standard way these numbers are reported...

A better question might be "how to 'correct for' the supposedly-intending independent voter". My idea that "treat as 'undecided' until proven otherwise" doesn't seem to be too popular, though.

Undecideds were 13%, btw.

Because if you are not reporting or as the newspapers term it "correcting for" undecideds in a poll like this you are invalidating the results by skewing them. It is very important not to do this when producing statistical results and estimates and it is an immediate and massive red flag that the results are bad when you see such stuff being done.

It invalidates any conclusions made from a poll when you throw out a significant proportion (in this case nearly 1/6th of the respondents) of the respondents without actually trying to model them or seeing why they are responding with a "I don't know yet". Any conclusions drawn from said numbers are tantamount to "**** I just made up to agree with my prejudices" and should be ignored by right thinking people.

That is why I asked, because I wanted to know were the reported results actually worth anything. They are not.

First Up

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Because if you are not reporting or as the newspapers term it "correcting for" undecideds in a poll like this you are invalidating the results by skewing them. It is very important not to do this when producing statistical results and estimates and it is an immediate and massive red flag that the results are bad when you see such stuff being done.

It invalidates any conclusions made from a poll when you throw out a significant proportion (in this case nearly 1/6th of the respondents) of the respondents without actually trying to model them or seeing why they are responding with a "I don't know yet". Any conclusions drawn from said numbers are tantamount to "**** I just made up to agree with my prejudices" and should be ignored by right thinking people.

That is why I asked, because I wanted to know were the reported results actually worth anything. They are not.

I'm not clear what your problem is here. Opinion polling based on sampling is a well developed and robust science, with very high levels of accuracy. Red C operate within accepted industry norms and that includes weighted distribution of "don't knows". They are not "thrown out" and I can't imagine how you would think they would be.

Godge

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Because if you are not reporting or as the newspapers term it "correcting for" undecideds in a poll like this you are invalidating the results by skewing them. It is very important not to do this when producing statistical results and estimates and it is an immediate and massive red flag that the results are bad when you see such stuff being done.

It invalidates any conclusions made from a poll when you throw out a significant proportion (in this case nearly 1/6th of the respondents) of the respondents without actually trying to model them or seeing why they are responding with a "I don't know yet". Any conclusions drawn from said numbers are tantamount to "**** I just made up to agree with my prejudices" and should be ignored by right thinking people.

That is why I asked, because I wanted to know were the reported results actually worth anything. They are not.

Every single opinion poll is conducted in a similar way. Therefore while you shouldn't put too much faith in the actual numbers, the trends are certainly worth watching. If there are 15% undecided distributed evenly over 20 polls but those polls also show FF dropping from 40% to 11% (as happened before the last election), does that mean the polls are wrong? No, it doesn't.

You can't just dismiss the polls, they have their limitations, only a snapshot, sampling errors, etc but they also have their uses, if examined in detail.

As for some of the other issues, have a read of this.

http://www.redcresearch.ie/polling/key-questions-about-polls#sthash.XKMvznz7.dpbs

http://www.redcresearch.ie/polling/poll-accuracy-method#sthash.FO5N0YAq.dpbs

hatrickpatrick

I'll admit to being disheartened by the most recent trends, however I reckon the recovery in support for establishment parties hangs on the knife's edge and it will only take a f*ck up of moderate proportions to bring them crashing down again.

Given the speed at which they've managed to escalate what should have been minor hiccups into full blown crises over the last four years, I'm still very confident in the rise of the independents.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll admit to being disheartened by the most recent trends, however I reckon the recovery in support for establishment parties hangs on the knife's edge and it will only take a f*ck up of moderate proportions to bring them crashing down again.

Given the speed at which they've managed to escalate what should have been minor hiccups into full blown crises over the last four years, I'm still very confident in the rise of the independents.

That may well happen but I think you underestimate the uphill battle for independents.

I have held the belief that independents/others have been hiding a lot of don't knows/won't votes which would traditionally have featured in opinion polls. In the past the don't knows would often have been up to 30% at this time of the electoral cycle - now they are 13%. A different indicator is that small parties (apart from SF) have not seen gains. Renua is only 2%, Greens 2-3%, SP and PBP negligible support. They should have got bigger chunks of the independent vote if it was really anti-establishment.

If I am right, about 10-12% of the existing 25% or so independent vote is going to be spread around other parties come election time by virtue of the don't knows making up their mind or not voting at all.

That means a decline looks inevitable. It will look worse than it is making it possible that a self-reinforcing trend will appear.

Quin_Dub

Godge wrote: »

That may well happen but I think you underestimate the uphill battle for independents.

I have held the belief that independents/others have been hiding a lot of don't knows/won't votes which would traditionally have featured in opinion polls. In the past the don't knows would often have been up to 30% at this time of the electoral cycle - now they are 13%. A different indicator is that small parties (apart from SF) have not seen gains. Renua is only 2%, Greens 2-3%, SP and PBP negligible support. They should have got bigger chunks of the independent vote if it was really anti-establishment.

If I am right, about 10-12% of the existing 25% or so independent vote is going to be spread around other parties come election time by virtue of the don't knows making up their mind or not voting at all.

That means a decline looks inevitable. It will look worse than it is making it possible that a self-reinforcing trend will appear.

For sure - Hard to see that "independent" level holding..

Let's be honest , how can most people know that they'll vote Independent in a years time.

For example , in my constituency there are no incumbent Independents (or small party) TD's and I have absolutely no idea what Independents may or may not be on my voting card this time next year..

Now, when the time comes, if a strong independent does knock on my door and I like what I hear , they could very well get a vote from me.. But until then I couldn't reasonably say that I plan to vote Independent or not

To be honest as this stage all I could really tell a pollster is who I absolutely will not be voting for under any circumstances...

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll admit to being disheartened by the most recent trends, however I reckon the recovery in support for establishment parties hangs on the knife's edge and it will only take a f*ck up of moderate proportions to bring them crashing down again.

Which are the "establishment" parties? This is handily vague term that's often bandied about. Including by the second or third largest party, to mean "the three largest parties other than ourselves". Given you're here to big up whatever indie we're having ourselves, don't you simply mean "parties"?

Godge

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For sure - Hard to see that "independent" level holding..

Let's be honest , how can most people know that they'll vote Independent in a years time.

For example , in my constituency there are no incumbent Independents (or small party) TD's and I have absolutely no idea what Independents may or may not be on my voting card this time next year..

Now, when the time comes, if a strong independent does knock on my door and I like what I hear , they could very well get a vote from me.. But until then I couldn't reasonably say that I plan to vote Independent or not

To be honest as this stage all I could really tell a pollster is who I absolutely will not be voting for under any circumstances...

You are absolutely right.

However, trends are what is important. Some people previously angry with the government are moving back towards supporting them but there is a long way to the next election.

If the election was tomorrow I would vote Green but there are a couple of things I don't know about them. Their economic policies are underdeveloped at the moment and any lunacy in those and I might change my mind. Secondly, their attitude to coalition with SF is unclear. I will not vote for any party that might get into bed with SF.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

You are absolutely right.

However, trends are what is important. Some people previously angry with the government are moving back towards supporting them but there is a long way to the next election.

If the election was tomorrow I would vote Green but there are a couple of things I don't know about them. Their economic policies are underdeveloped at the moment and any lunacy in those and I might change my mind. Secondly, their attitude to coalition with SF is unclear. I will not vote for any party that might get into bed with SF.

Does that mean you have forgiven the Greens for being part of the government that caused the bust, or do you regard them as innocent bystanders?

alaimacerc

First Up wrote: »

Does that mean you have forgiven the Greens for being part of the government that caused the bust, or do you regard them as innocent bystanders?

Very conflicted on that one myself. Running out of parties not in the "never (again)!" category...

Godge

First Up wrote: »

Does that mean you have forgiven the Greens for being part of the government that caused the bust, or do you regard them as innocent bystanders?

I think they were very naive in government with FF. I am impressed with Ryan and how he has responded since then. I think the lesson has been learned.

It may look like hypocrisy because I won't forgive FF. But that is like sending an experienced electrician out with an apprentice to do a job and blaming the apprentice as much as the other man for any joint cock-up. The apprentice still have the capacity to learn and do things better.

hatrickpatrick

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which are the "establishment" parties? This is handily vague term that's often bandied about. Including by the second or third largest party, to mean "the three largest parties other than ourselves". Given you're here to big up whatever indie we're having ourselves, don't you simply mean "parties"?

Establishment parties meaning the large parties which have consistently dominated political discourse in Ireland for many years, and have supported the establishment over citizens in terms of institutions (banks, the church, etc) and the EU. Currently comprising FF, FG, and Labour - in my perhaps controversial opinion SF would probably end up in the same category after any length of time in government. The Greens and PDs also comprised part of this when they were relevant.

To put it another way, establishment parties are those who tend to protect power-wielding societal institutions from the will of the people.

alaimacerc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Establishment parties meaning the large parties which have consistently dominated political discourse in Ireland for many years, and have supported the establishment over citizens in terms of institutions (banks, the church, etc) and the EU. Currently comprising FF, FG, and Labour - in my perhaps controversial opinion SF would probably end up in the same category after any length of time in government. The Greens and PDs also comprised part of this when they were relevant.

To put it another way, establishment parties are those who tend to protect power-wielding societal institutions from the will of the people.

A "handily vague term" indeed. If a term means anything, it means nothing. That wasn't a useful -- or even a usable -- definition.