You've outlined all the reasons why they're not accurate. How did you come to the conclusion that they are?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
You've outlined all the reasons why they're not accurate. How did you come to the conclusion that they are?
I said poll aggregators are good sources as pooling the results of many different companies polls, and when done properly, means the relatively larger sample size and counterbalancing of biases results in fairly accurate data.
The problem with polling isn't the polls themselves, it's the people who read/quote them. For example a poll with a 3% error margin that gives the Tories a 4 point lead merely means the real picture could be anywhere between a 2 point Labour lead a 10 point Tory lead.
She likes a big black rod, what's the problem?
They don't all look like her.
18 Euros, 16 if it's requested online, now has a 10 year validity.
Aggregating erroneous results somehow fixes them?
They aren't erroneous results (that would mean they are incorrect i.e. misreporting their own data), each polling company has a predictable lean one way or the other as their biases and methods produce this lean. This can identified and accounted for when pooling the data by looking at historical accuracy, not to mention the simple statistical fact that a larger sample size means the data is more reliable.
So, a poll paid for by the Lib Dems and naming her Labour opponent as someone who isn't standing.
Other than that, it's solid. Take it to the bank.
Other than that, it's solid. Take it to the bank.
How the self styled 'mighty' has fallen.
Even GMTV viewers can't stand the opionated big mouth bulley.
Total 100% twat.
Will of the People.
To create the desired lean they have to misrepresent their data in one form or therefore rendering it erroneous and inaccurate. Aggregating these results even by trying to reverse the lean it will just amplify the margin of error.
If polls are to be taken at face value appointing Boris has made the Conservatives hugely popular however in real life the majority of moderate and “shy tories” absolutely despise him and that centre is where the power of the electorate lies because that’s the swing that decides elections.
I'm sorry but your entire post is nonsense.
Polling companies do not have to misrepresent their data to create a certain outcome, the lean is created, either deliberately or not, by the forming of survey such as the wording of the questions, or the sampling technique, i.e. when/how it is conducted and how exactly to stratify. A statistical analysis of historical data can show how much 'lean' the company normally has and so the data can be corrected or treated accordingly. Correcting a known and demonstrable error ≠ amplifying the margin of error.
As for Johnson, he may be alienating centrist and economically conservative but socially liberal Tories, but this is more than offset by the 'new' Tories since the referendum, i.e. formerly UKIP, non voters, recent Brexit Party supporters and the socially conservative wing of the Tory Party.
That my friend presupposes that the people actually have a common will.
I'll work from the point of view of presupposing Morgan is a cnut and go from there.
It's a pointless conversation you keep giving more and more details of how the polls are inacuratte and conclude that they are.
Only one poll is ever accurate, and that's the votes cast at the ballot box. All the rest are open to manipulation and misrepresentation to suit anyones needs.
So will I.
It's a pointless conversation you keep giving more and more details of how the polls are inacuratte and conclude that they are.
Only one poll is ever accurate, and that's the votes cast at the ballot box. All the rest are open to manipulation and misrepresentation to suit anyones needs.
It's all about understanding and managing error, of course no sample can ever claim to be as accurate of a census, neithet I nor the companies themselves claim that, they specify an error margin for that reason.
If you can't understand simple statistical principles then you are correct, this is pointless.
I understand statistics very well, however they are manipulated to the conducters content so they simply are not accurate.
An example of statistics is the government failing to register certain types of offences as crime or violent crime then using the collated statistics to claim that crime is down
I understand statistics very well, however they are manipulated to the conducters content so they simply are not accurate.
An example of statistics is the government failing to register certain types of offences as crime or violent crime then using the collated statistics to claim that crime is down
OK, I'm aware of how data can be manipulated, but there is a difference between variation created by technique/error due to sampling size/method and data manipulation or falsification. As you seem unable to distinguish between them I see no point continuing this so I won't be replying again.
Looks like we'll be having an election in December.
How do they get from £34B down to £20.5B with inflation at around 2%?
How do they get from £34B down to £20.5B with inflation at around 2%?
2018/19 budget was 114.6 billion. At 2% inflation the 2023 equivalent would be 126.5 billion. The government is projecting a 2023/24 spend of 148.5 billion. 148.5-126.5 = 22 billion.
I for one am shocked.
Better get to A&E right now mate. If you leave it too long then you might have to pay to upgrade your place in the queue.
Seriously though, Where's the press outrage for this one? They're more than happy to pay lip service to the NHS until it's at risk or, you know, staff go on strike because they see the whole thing falling apart and want to raise awareness to it (probably hoping that folk don't just claim it's down to them wanting more money).
Classic Lib Dems. Tory enablers.
Lack of press coverage is shocking but not something new. Many stories that would make the public more pro Labour are not being covered. Press are complicit.
Politics these days is depressing. This was a regret motion, you can read the wording yourself. It wouldn't have repealed the Health and Social Care Act, or introduced any new legislation, or anything like that.
The only reason Labour did this was because they knew the Lib Dems wouldn't support in. Then they could put it out on social media for their supporters to get indignant over, safe in the knowledge that most people don't actually look at the information behind the claim. An exercise in disinformation.
Since we're accepting Labour propaganda now as the unchallengeable truth, here's what the Lib Dems say.
ie there was other stuff in the amendment they didn't agree with, so they abstained.
But you know, it gave the Labour culties their daily shot of anger, so well done.
Er....yeah I know. This is where I first hear about it -
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/art...h-amendment-protect-nhs-further-privatisation
Its was nothing more than a gesture, so that case wouldn't did the lib vote for it ?
They really don't help themselves
And
Health act means the death of the NHS as we know it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/health-act-means-death-of-nhs
Last edited:
It's the thought that counts.
If you knew, it's a pity you shared that tweet that made it out to be something its not.
In this case, not really. Even if this was somehow binding, it suggested repealing a piece of legislation that's central to how the NHS and social systems work with literally nothing to replace it. For better or worse, its the legislative framework that the NHS works on you can't just delete it and move on. Anyone being remotely sensible would consider that a bad idea.
yeah but it’s easier to just say the Lib Dem’s are tories amirite