tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post5004394883331092526..comments2024-03-29T14:02:52.819+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Concerns mount over the role of No-friendly pollster Ipsos-Mori in hand-picking the audience for the STV leaders' debateJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-74156038914453278502014-08-12T12:32:20.371+01:002014-08-12T12:32:20.371+01:00Just back in NZ now from 4 weeks home in the Highl...Just back in NZ now from 4 weeks home in the Highlands. Puzzled at the polls. Hardly found a single NO person in all that time who had a vote. <br />For me it's a no brainer, positive attitude, seize the day, is what the issue is. Stay with the same crap that drove me away will continue to bleed Scotland dry,(and England too). <br />Wish I had a vote but I trust the cognitively intact population of the land will prevail.<br />We are lucky though, when the parliaments were first united, we had no say, it was the corrupt aristocracy, so the only option for the common man was to riot - and we did. Lets correct that historic injustice - Vote positive - YESAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-24646372024208501742014-08-09T13:02:00.486+01:002014-08-09T13:02:00.486+01:00I know of only one person who has been contacted b...I know of only one person who has been contacted by IPSOS Mori via telephone - 3 times! Each time when she answered their question that she was intending to vote 'Yes' in the referendum, she was told each time that their poll was now over subscribed and they had their quota and she didn;t have to answer any more questions and the phone went dead!!!!!Kirsten Easdalenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-79700616719209119462014-08-09T12:54:05.426+01:002014-08-09T12:54:05.426+01:00Hello James,
I am wondering why this story isnt b...Hello James,<br /><br />I am wondering why this story isnt being covered in the media and if you are in the process of making it so?<br /><br />Innes Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04642113397413889437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-84615790309832285972014-08-08T22:27:48.856+01:002014-08-08T22:27:48.856+01:00"The polls are showing No ahead. So the polls...<i>"The polls are showing No ahead. So the polls must be dodgy."</i><br /><br />So you think that's why YouGov made their unprecedented attack the other pollsters then you dopey twat?<br /><br /><br /><i>"Aside the part of the post-debate poll that showed Salmond winning with undecided voters. That is obviously true"</i><br /><br />The No friendly pundit Curtice was certainly fooled into thinking it was true since he repeated it. Must sting quite a bit to know that all that hysterical foaming at the mouth by the unionist trolls and press was for absolutely nothing.<br /><br />LOL<br /><br />You going to tell us all that there being No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq is a 'conspiracy theory' as well, Britnat troll? <br /><br />Perhaps you should run along and tell Darling who was scaremongering about WMD long before he started scaremongering about currency. An issue that only <b>2%</b> of scots consider the most important issue. What a shame.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-61395234507110516362014-08-08T22:14:12.122+01:002014-08-08T22:14:12.122+01:00The polls are showing No ahead. So the polls must ...The polls are showing No ahead. So the polls must be dodgy.<br /><br />The debate didn't go well for Yes? So the debate much have been fixed. <br /><br />Aside the part of the post-debate poll that showed Salmond winning with undecided voters. That is obviously true. As are allegations made by Yes supporters of the aforementioned behaviour and anyone who asks for proof is obviously a No troll. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-11195886661042560182014-08-08T20:04:33.016+01:002014-08-08T20:04:33.016+01:00He was quoting the scare stories from Better Toget...He was quoting the scare stories from Better Together. Have you not heard them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-46295239171644129342014-08-08T19:50:59.742+01:002014-08-08T19:50:59.742+01:00I was contacted a couple of months ago by the BBC ...I was contacted a couple of months ago by the BBC regarding a referendum programme to be broadcast for Portree. It was strange because the person phoning did not know why my phone number had come up on their contact list. I said it could be because I was involved in a local community enterprise or because I am small business man or even because of historic involvement with a school dispute with Highland Council.<br />We chatted for a couple of minutes. I expressed interest in attending and the rep was delighted. We then got on to the matter of how I perceived the debate to be moving. I said in common with the polls I was generally noticing how many people were moving from No to Yes. The tone then changed. I was advised that 'we in the media believe that something different was happening' <br />I was assured that I would be emailed information on how I could receive an invite. I heard nothing more.<br />I did not pursue the issue because I was busy with work and other matters. I rather wish I had now.Garry Noakesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-59814762557559455802014-08-08T19:18:32.780+01:002014-08-08T19:18:32.780+01:00I'm with YouGov and I used to be polled regula...I'm with YouGov and I used to be polled regularly on politics generally. For the last eighteen months there has been zilch. I probably gave the game away by consistently saying I voted SNP and would vote 'YES'.<br />Not particularly 'scientific', but I know and my fellow travellers know, why I'm no longer asked for my views.<br />YouGov are, to put it mildly, untrustworthy.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04565579919684172507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-31618473896204407912014-08-08T19:04:36.180+01:002014-08-08T19:04:36.180+01:00Heh, just noticed your preceding post James. At ti...Heh, just noticed your preceding post James. At times we do seem to reach similar conclusions on some issues. ;-)<br /><br />Though to be fair at least we're nowhere near the comical level of synchronised tweets that we used to see on PB from the comedy 'greats'.<br /><br />*chortle*Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-16425340205644024642014-08-08T18:57:11.032+01:002014-08-08T18:57:11.032+01:00"The conversation here is starting to sound v...<i>"The conversation here is starting to sound very reminiscent of the Republican talking points in the run up to the Obama/Romney election."</i><br /><br />Wrong. It has already been pointed out that we aren't talking about all the polls saying the same thing but a HUGE divergence in the polling between all the polling companies. <br /><br />A chasm so great and so glaring that YouGov actually took the absolutely unprecedented step of commissioning a poll with the sole purpose of attacking and discrediting other pollsters. This was because Kellner had made a his bizarre "Kellner Correction" to YouGov Independence polling and yet <i>still</i> will not release the figures and data that underpinned it. (a frankly bizarre level of secrecy that the other BPC members do not engage in) Survation were then forced to defend themselves from the YouGov attack which they did with no small measure of rigour and an entirely understandable level of irritation with Kellner's bizarre behaviour.<br /><br />That's the pollsters fighting among themselves NOT all under attack from one party like the Republicans. <br /><br />For that matter you only had to take a 5 minute look the spectacle of the out of touch G.O.P. circus to know Obama was going to win. Something a huge number of people did say at the time. Curiously we aren't being touted as a "hyper-intelligent" because we did so. ;-)<br /><br /><i>"(quick clue - calling 47% of the population bloodsucking leeches who want to steal the rich peoples' money might annoy almost half of the electorate)"</i><br /><br />Absolutely right. Or as we in scotland get called by another name, "subsidy junkies". Which the ever helpful right-wing dominated press and some westminster politicians just can't stop themselves from calling us.<br /><br /><br />As for the meat of polling analysis, when glaring methodological changes continually go without explanation do not expect them to be ignored here. However you choose to ascribe the factors behind them they matter. Pollsters get paid by their clients for every poll, not just the one that immediately precedes an election or referendum. Nor can you possibly expect the 2011 landslide election and upset in scotland not to colour how the pollsters are perceived and conducting themselves this time around. 2011 was only a mere <i>three years</i> ago yet there is <i>STILL</i> blowback and mechanisms built into UK GE polling because of the <b>1992</b> fiasco with the 'shy tories'.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-50187700515158961752014-08-08T18:34:55.233+01:002014-08-08T18:34:55.233+01:00"The conversation here is starting to sound v...<i>"The conversation here is starting to sound very reminiscent of the Republican talking points in the run up to the Obama/Romney election.<br /><br />All of the talk was about "skewed polls" - about how the samples were wrong, the pollsters were biased, the weighting was wrong, etc."</i><br /><br />That's almost a fair point, but you could also say it sounds very much like what the Conservatives were saying about the polls in the run-up to the 1992 election - and in that case they turned out to be right. This is a very unusual campaign because we already know for a fact that at least some of the pollsters have their methodologies wrong - because the figures from the Yes-friendly pollsters are quite simply irreconcilable with the No-friendly pollsters.<br /><br />As for the US, Silver was able to do what he did partly because of the peculiarities of the electoral college - if he'd been relying solely on national polls, the potential for error would have been that much greater.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-83668343995682373122014-08-08T18:12:55.510+01:002014-08-08T18:12:55.510+01:00The conversation here is starting to sound very re...The conversation here is starting to sound very reminiscent of the Republican talking points in the run up to the Obama/Romney election.<br /><br />All of the talk was about "skewed polls" - about how the samples were wrong, the pollsters were biased, the weighting was wrong, etc. Various websites and commentators attempted to "correct" for these mistakes to show that Romney was going to romp home and win in a landslide.<br /><br />All the while, the bookies' odds reflected the polls pretty closely. In the end, the bookies were right and the result was very similar to the pollsters' predictions. The most boring, non-conspiratorial ways of looking at the data and assuming that the pollsters were roughly as accurate as usual and not biased in any particular way (such as those by the hyper-intelligent Nate Silver) turned out to be accurate.<br /><br />Frankly, the Republicans may have done better if they had focussed on what was turning the voters off of their candidate (quick clue - calling 47% of the population bloodsucking leeches who want to steal the rich peoples' money might annoy almost half of the electorate) rather than pretending that there were no problems and that they were going to win the election.<br /><br />Yes is behind in the polls right now. This isn't a problem, and there's definitely enough time to turn this around. But we don't get anywhere by pretending that these polling firms (who have their reputation on the line and would LOVE to be the ones who get the result right while their competitors flounder) are intentionally leaving enormous methodological errors in place!Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-677997697459351902014-08-08T17:47:55.446+01:002014-08-08T17:47:55.446+01:00Thanks Mick Pork - while illicitly on wifi on the ...Thanks Mick Pork - while illicitly on wifi on the pier at Uig while wife distracted (actually, she's on hers too - so much for holiday resolutions). Some really bold Yes cars up this way including one with saltires on the facing edge of both wing mirrors, like a blue angel cruising down the highway. Alastair McIntoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02057511478889767753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-40243579806568809412014-08-08T17:38:28.764+01:002014-08-08T17:38:28.764+01:00Just a quick apology to Alastair for the inadverte...Just a quick apology to Alastair for the inadvertent typos in his name. <br /><br /><br />Also a plea to hear more from him after his holiday as if it wasn't already clear I find his observations and insights thought provoking and extremely valuable.<br /><br />Have a great holiday Alastair. :-)Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-59021435593063791822014-08-08T17:27:33.913+01:002014-08-08T17:27:33.913+01:00Andrew : If the bookies have too much exposure on ...Andrew : If the bookies have too much exposure on one outcome, they can artificially adjust the odds to limit any potential damage. The classic example would be a middle-ranking British player in the first round of Wimbledon - so many bets will be placed that the odds on that player will be shorter than the true probabilities would warrant.<br /><br />But it's also worth bearing in mind that the bookies also sometimes take a pounding because of a simple mistake in their own reasoning. As I always point out, Labour were 1/10 favourites to win most seats in the 2007 election for several hours AFTER Brian Taylor had reported that the SNP looked like sneaking it narrowly. The bookies had just made the schoolboy error of looking at how far ahead Labour were on the running seat tally, and assuming that they didn't need to investigate any further.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-987668850423528962014-08-08T16:29:35.344+01:002014-08-08T16:29:35.344+01:00Sounds to me as if the correct approach is to invo...Sounds to me as if the correct approach is to involve the police with a complaint about corruption.Grumpomcchiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111131257017253832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-18870463722459950462014-08-08T16:13:58.910+01:002014-08-08T16:13:58.910+01:00So now Obama is launching air strikes in Iraq with...So now Obama is launching air strikes in Iraq with military intervention a reality again. <br /><br />This after he promised "no boots on the ground" and promptly sent 300 special forces boots very firmly onto that ground. Has the U.K. sent any special forces boots on the ground? We simply don't know because the Tory Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and PM won't tell us. Though since we now know just how early it was that the UK sent in boots on the ground to Libya, (current status basket case with widespread carnage - military intervention backfired there too amazingly enough) it's a fairly safe bet that there is.<br /><br />The westminster promises that they don't want to start Iraq 2.0 with ever escalating military intervention are starting to sound hauntingly familiar and hollow. <br /><br />Case in point.<br /><br /><i>"Defence Secretary Michael Fallon says he welcomes the US military intervention in Iraq but insists that Britain's role will be limited to supporting American operations in areas such as refuelling and surveillance"</i><br /><br />Limited for now, not for when this escalates further as it most assuredly will.<br /><br />I recall saying air-strikes and military intervention were next when Iraq exploded into full-scale bloodshed yet again. I also recall the westminster press and media pretending such a thing was hugely unlikely and we shouldn't worry about it.<br /><br />Turns out they were full of shit. Who would have guessed it?<br /><br />Do scots <i>really</i> want to get dragged into endless wars in the middle east for the next 10, 20, 30 years? At the cost of the deaths of ever more young scots servicemen and women? With our 'reward' being a pat on the head from the U.S. President to whatever idiot UK P.M. is in power at the time?<br /><br />I somehow don't think so and I'm 100% certain that <b>westminster's Plan B for Iraq</b> will not impress the scottish public either.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-77063723498983394342014-08-08T15:38:45.104+01:002014-08-08T15:38:45.104+01:00Whether the No campaign likes it or not tris they ...Whether the No campaign likes it or not tris they are going to have to come up with a far more credible response to the stunningly obvious point you raise.(which in no way belittles you raising it I hasten to add) Scots know plenty of other countries like us manage perfectly well and indeed flourish without being treated like children by a discredited and mistrusted westminster establishment.<br /><br />For all the shrieking about 'plan B' from the BritNats the fact of the matter is currency has a mere <b>2%</b> salience as the most important issue. This while seemingly endless westminster austerity is the elephant in the room. One which Cameron, Clegg, little Ed and the unionist media are self-evidently terrified of talking about and desperate to ignore.<br /><br />Foreign Affairs is just yet another area that No are going to wish they could ignore and the reasons why are well worth setting out on today of all days. Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-58729470042458371232014-08-08T15:29:25.022+01:002014-08-08T15:29:25.022+01:00Sorry for the O/T post but I'm wondering if so...Sorry for the O/T post but I'm wondering if someone can help me... A rather smug NO supporter I know has been making a big noise about the current betting odds. Now, I know people have mentioned on this site that the odds are a factor of both probability and the scale of bets that have been placed, but I'm not sure I understand how this works and consequently why my no supporting friend should not quite so cocky? Could someone please help explain this? Thanks.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-62660133328350666862014-08-08T15:15:56.585+01:002014-08-08T15:15:56.585+01:00It seems to me, Mick, that Scotland will be a rela...It seems to me, Mick, that Scotland will be a relatively rich, small, relatively unimportant northern European country.<br /><br />There are others. Iceland, Norway, Faroes, Denmark/Greenland, Sweden, Finland.. and many more. They all enjoy high living standards and a good lifestyle.<br /><br />And they are all relatively small, at least in population terms and relatively insignificant as "powers".<br /><br />How do they manage this threat from outer space, or whatever, without the Uk's broad shoulders and sharing the risks?<br /><br />Maybe (for God's sake why) the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary could answer that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-14466438080195435602014-08-08T15:07:39.079+01:002014-08-08T15:07:39.079+01:00Alastair, surely the key point is that was cannott...Alastair, surely the key point is that was cannott assess the credibility of the threat Hammond raised because he refused to expand on it and according to his government sources it's classified.<br /><br />Without any details this nebulous threat from space is still a fantastically remote possibility and as such it is the perfect example of Project Fear scaremongering. <br /><br />Given that extremely limited information and secrecy, all we can therefore do is <i>guess</i> that Hammond was probably talking about the threat from <i>some</i> kind of satellite interception weapon system. That above all is why we simply cannot engage in the kind of debate you would like to see. <br /><br />The UK Tory Defence Secretary obviously did not want a measured discussion on this or he would have given the scottish public at least some cursory details of what he was talking about. Instead it suits him and Project Fear to raise the spectre of yet another nameless and supposedly serious threat and then shut down any rebuttal of it with the perennial Westminster favourite of "it's classified".<br /><br />So I'm afraid I disagree with you that we should have given Hammond's scaremongering more respect since he quite clearly had no intention of treating the scottish public like adults by giving us the necessary information to assess precisely what threat he was even talking about, never mind the most salient details of it. <br /><br />What Project Fear want is endless speculation on vague and unspecified threats to scotland. Their big problem is that they are forever asking us to trust them when trust in westmintser is in laughably short supply from the scottish public.<br /><br />The satellite business is worth many billions worldwide and scotland has already proved it is poised to take advantage of the abundant technical expertise we have in the field. It is therefore incumbent on the UK Defence secretary to be far more forthcoming than to make vague threats that likely refer to satellites but which cannot be responded to seriously and in detail when they are met with "it's classified" as the rote response.<br /><br />Nor are these tactics limited to the weaponisation and militarisation of space. Trident is a huge concern to scottish voters which you rightly mention Alistair. Yet it too has been subject to intense secrecy over the years. The details of the targeting and just how reliant it is on U.S. technology are crucial when assessing just how 'independent' this weapon of mass destruction really is and precisely <i>who</i> the U.K. government think it is deterring or would ever use it to attack.<br /><br />The full spectrum dominance the U.S. like to speak of is named that because it includes the full panoply of orbital platforms and satellite interception. It is China who are putting vast resources into countering and matching the U.S. capability in this area. That being the case the scottish public will have to decide whether any supposed theoretical threat of a chinese attack on scottish satellites is credible enough to keep us from voting to be independent. After all, we can only guess at why being independent would somehow make that chinese aggression against scotland any more likely than it is now. Same thing goes for Trident.<br />Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-36848643639644459582014-08-08T14:02:31.551+01:002014-08-08T14:02:31.551+01:00Way off-topic but possibly interesting: I was read...Way off-topic but possibly interesting: I was reading the other day about the recent Swiss referendum on immigration quotas. It's quite a striking example of the phenomenon of people telling pollsters what they think they want to hear ... and a shy yes. ;-)<br /><br />(I have to say that it's a bit different as without going too far into Swiss politics, the party proposing the referendum, *does* have a very conservative to borderline racist outlook.)<br /><br />Anyway, the similaritites:<br /><br />- one party and popular sentiment backs yes<br />- all other parties, the media and the establishment backs no<br />- yes is decried as racist and economically harmful<br />- initial polls show strong yes support, overall v close<br />- under media bombardment, strong no support takes over, a month before poll it's N+15<br />- as vote approaches it tightens, but at 2 weeks out it's still N+7<br /><br />... and the actual result is Y+0.3!<br /><br />Google in french - "Initiative populaire contre l'immigration de masse" sondage is a poll.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-88440406202701571282014-08-08T13:48:55.727+01:002014-08-08T13:48:55.727+01:00I watched the debate in the pub. Even the no voter...I watched the debate in the pub. Even the no voters were laughing at the "snide" no plant in the audience, it was so obvious, I don't know who it is that they think they are kidding.Pantone300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-2496927672481215822014-08-08T12:56:50.683+01:002014-08-08T12:56:50.683+01:00Anon : Yes, the 'businessman' had 'No ...Anon : Yes, the 'businessman' had 'No campaign plant' written all over him.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-10651904726869486162014-08-08T12:22:56.428+01:002014-08-08T12:22:56.428+01:00I have it on good authority that the 'business...I have it on good authority that the 'businessman' whose only concern was that wee Eck had been 'snide' is a Labour Party supporter from Jackie Baillie's bailiwick. He was recognised by a local SNP activist. Someone on twitter has confirmed the name of the better together activist that appeared as a 'neutral' on the panel unfortunately I can't find that tweet right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com