prawnsambo wrote: » As I said, they should publish the data underlying the recommendations. That would at the very least give a basis for it. It's quite valid to use more recent polling data than the 2017 election, because a lot has changed in the interim. And as I also said, recent polling in JRM's constituency shows the LD with a better chance of unseating him. I have also checked other constituencies that had Labour a close second in 2017 and the site recommends Labour. These types of websites are in danger of becoming propaganda organs unless they publish the data. My advice to anyone using these would be to DYOR as well. It's your vote, don't assume anything.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I haven't seen any of that polling in the mogg constituency. Is there a handy online link available anywhere?
dePeatrick wrote: » No fan of Swinson but she is right here, the question is written under the bar chart.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He was asked to say that specifically (he was saying it a week or so ago) and refused point blank a number of times. All he would now say is 'we will run candidates across NI'. I'm afraid as is always the case and as I suspected, they are climbing down.
The initial UUP plan was to stand everywhere to offer Unionists a choice. They have failed at this. It will be supremely ironic if, having cowered before Dodds, they insist on running in North Down in defence of a principle they have already retreated from and in doing so take out Lady Sylvia Hermon, allowing another DUP Brexiteer to be elected.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » She has been caught red handed a number of times bullshitting on TV. The accent changes all over the place
prawnsambo wrote: » The other thing that has escaped my attention, that perhaps the Labour supporters on here might be able to help me with, is whether there's an election pact in place or not. Are LD and Lab candidates standing down or supporting each other and vice versa in seats where one or other has a chance?
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » On The View yer man as much as said they'll try to get a candidate in all 18 constituencies.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » When do the candidates have to declare by ? Is it also the last date they can step down ?
prawnsambo wrote: » The Britain Elects Twitter feed is a good source. They basically tweet all election results and polls and link the sources. Here's the one for JRM's constituency.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Hyprocrite Swinson is just appallinghttps://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1190969677050200064
Leroy42 wrote: » At worst they spun the survey. But why should she not stand by it? If that is what people stated to the question they were asked? Sophie is trying to look like being tough but did she call Johnson up on the Tories claim about hospitals, or the massive reduction in police numbers. Or how about calling him out on his lying about the 31 Oct deadline, the waste of £100m on a marketing campaign wasted.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I cant read the small print on my phone, so I'm wondering if its pointed out that this is a lib dem sponsored survey. Not that I'm suggesting it's rigged necessarily, just that I think that's info worth knowing. Easy to believe they're closing the gap there, but by that much? Seems unlikely but i guess the ultimate poll on election day will tell us. No way i could see labour even contemplating standing down on that basis.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Yes thats all ok. I dont have a major issue with all this. Just when you see the site recommending a LD vote in one constituency where they had 6% of vote in 2017, it begs questions. Yes, things have changed since 2017 but still. That piece in guardian doesnt clear a lot up. There were a lot of strange things in the recommendations, regardless of how many labour mps they recommended. If they do release all the data, then fine.
prawnsambo wrote: » Survation consistently poll the LDs lower nationally. That particular one, they provided the candidate names, so it's likely quite accurate. But if you followed the link as I suggested, you'd have found this.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Thanks. I didnt see that on previous link but its fair enough. This isn't anti lib dem, I'm just not mad about this kind of polling or even any kind of polling and making big claims on back of it. I'm not sure why providing candidates names - did they even know them at time of survey? - should make that much of a difference and why do it only this one? Just these polls often leave me a little bit suspicious tbh, but maybe time will tell it was on the mark.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Maybe the folk on here are seeing the Lib dems reality for the first time, I have seen it many times in Scotland, Swinson is not the saviour some make outhttps://twitter.com/Feorlean/status/1191070619196112900
prawnsambo wrote: » Candidate names make a difference in constituency polls. You get different results than if it's just parties. Useful as well when you have a big name like JRM rather than plain vanilla Tarquin Croesus-Tory. Makes it more real to the respondent.
prawnsambo wrote: » This is exactly my point. All the opposition parties are playing into Tory hands with this crap. All of them. Start working together and stop dredging up old history. Because every political party has crap in their closets and all it will do is turn the electorate off.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Fair enough. The whole process by which these telephone polls are compiled intrigues me. The guardian magazine did an in depth piece on it recently and it just came across as a rather strange business to me, i guess they can be a reasonable guide, but i just struggle to have any faith in them.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » This 100 times, so far the usual suspects on my Facebook feed have been sounding off loudly and frequently about the evils of the Lib-Dems, not realizing that support for Corbyn might entail more than back biting other people on the political left and might actually involve tackling the Torys.
quokula wrote: » I'm not sure how multiple examples of the Lib Dems and only the Lib Dems producing intentionally misleading data to fool people into thinking they should tactically vote for them when they shouldn't is proof that "all the opposition parties" are playing into the Tories hands.
darem93 wrote: » Very disappointing to see the UUP backing down in the end. It would have been brilliant to see Dodds ousted from that seat.
The fact that the SDLP, who have never done pacts with the Shinners, are willing to stand aside, shows just how strong the feeling is against this Brexit
More than 1,000 representatives of civic society across Ireland and among the diaspora have signed an open letter to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar calling for a “new conversation” about the constitutional future of the island of Ireland.
prawnsambo wrote: » If we're talking about the polling in East Somerset, then it wasn't 'intentionally misleading'. In fact it clearly stated the basis for the poll in the poll and the data that it was based on was also published along with the fact that it was commissioned by them.
quokula wrote: » It was stated in tiny small print that they hoped the majority of people wouldn't notice. And it was a wildly leading question purposely intended to produce a misleading result. This didn't come *after* a real poll showing them ahead. They commissioned both questions as part of the same poll. I'm assuming that people had to answer the fair question before answering the loaded one but I'm not sure if that was guaranteed - if they had seen or heard the loaded question before answering the fair one then that would have anchored their thinking and completely skewed the results. The other thing we don't know is how many polls they commissioned until they got the result they want, which is perfectly feasible with the small sample size. Survation are only required to show the workings of polls that actually get published (this is a requirement by the way, not some generous show of transparency from the Lib Dems like you make out) It's possible that it was all above board, but when the one they choose to publish is based on such a wildly misleading question, and they have form of misleading data elsewhere, and for it to be true it would require a completely historically unprecedented swing in the space of two years from the only 100% reliable poll we actually have which is the last election, it gets hard to believe.
