CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

  1. crowriver
    Member

    Perhaps one lesson from the rise of UKIP (for 'people' rather than politicians) is that there is a (desire to) move away from the party political system.

    Not at all. It represents primarily a disaffection with the existing established political parties (ie. Tories, Labour, Lib Dems) which are increasingly difficult to distinguish from one another. The long lasting recession, austerity meaures, and no clear way out of the resulting mess, have stoked all kinds of fear and uncertainty amongst many people.

    UKIP is also I would argue a phenomenon fomented by the incredible blitz of free publicity given to their politicians by the (largely) right wing media in the UK. Not to menton that two of UKIP's key issues (Europe and immigration) have been played up by the media for a number of years, and pandered to by those aforementioned mainstream parties.

    This set of circumstances has allowed UKIP to set the political agenda in a manner not seen since the days of the National Front in the late 1970s.

    Personally I never imagined we could see a political lurch even further to the right in the UK, but it seems to be happening. Little wonder then that Scots, with more of a (generalised) political tendency in recent dacades towards vaguely left leaning social democracy*, are more and more looking aghast at the UK political landscape.

    * - That's not to say that Scots are somehow intrinsically more 'progressive' than those in England, but that our social and economic circumstances are less favourable for the agendas of populist right wing parties like UKIP.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    "Not at all. It represents primarily a disaffection with the existing established political parties"

    Yes, but your use of "primarily" suggests you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. Instography
    Member

    I don't mind being wrong at all. Finding out if I'm wrong is the whole point of arguing. I get no advantage at all from wanting to appear correct or insisting I'm correct. There's certainly no advantage to insisting that they are outliers now only to call it wrongly. That would be embarassing (and mildly ruinous). Much better to be sure of the analysis before you say anything.

    But I'm always aware that you don't identify the important weaknesses in an argument by allowing too many caveats to get in the way. So, yes, I wrote that at the extremes to have a better argument. The actual analysis is a bit more subtle. Nothing gets thrown away but it all needs to be tweaked before it's useful.

    Of course I realise they are not the product of random variation. If they were random they wouldn't be a problem at all. They are a problem because the differences are systematic. As I expressed it earlier the variations are dimensionally and directionally consistent. You call them methodological but I call them house effects. I don't want to give too much primacy to methodology because it implies that it's something to do with the mode of data collection - internet or face-to-face or telephone - and you say as much in your parenthesised explanation of YouGov. Actually, I think it's got more to do with how each company implements its chosen methodology. It probably wouldn't be wise to speculate too much about how the differences between polling companies arise.

    Where I disagree with your explanation of YouGov and where I think we disagree more fundamentally is that you suggest that if YouGov did 100 polls using the same method they should get one cluster but if they did 100 by five different methods they should get five different clusters. I would say that if YouGov did that, they should still get all of the results in a single cluster. If one method produced a systematically different result that would strongly indicate bias - a problem of implementation not methodology. If they got five clusters it would suggest they do nothing right (well, maybe one but we wouldn't know which) and we should hire someone else.

    So I prefer the notion of house effects partly because it focuses on the company rather than method and because it covers the range of sources of bias and bundles them up into a single measure of the extent to which a company is systematically biased in one direction or the other. It means I don't need to worry about why they are different, just accept that they are and then work out by how much. When we estimate the house effects, we can remove them and get a better estimate of the 'truth'. But we first of all have to acknowledge that none of them is individually the truth but collectively, appropriately analysed, they can point us to the truth, or at least a better understanding of what the truth might be. We get better view of the underlying trends that the current methods being used for 'polls of polls' - essentially rolling averages - aren't getting close to.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. Stickman
    Member

    I would speculate that part of the rise of UKIP can be attributed to the very vague articulation of their policies (other than anti-EU). Therefore a lot of people have projected their own desires on to them - for example they have appealed to disaffected old-school One Nation Tories, small state economic liberals and libertarians all the way through to anti-immigration types normally associated with the BNP. Each seems to believe (or more likely, hope) that the "real" UKIP represents their views.

    Whether their support remains high will depend on how long the more reasonable sorts described above can hold their noses and put up with the BNP faction. As more scrutiny is placed on their policies and it becomes clear how little consistent thought has been given to them then I suspect people will drift off again and they'll be left in the "minor parties" once more.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    Interesting. I wondered if the rise of UKIP wasn't a left/right thing but a revolt against the uniform authoritarianism of the Con/Lib/Lab parties. UKIP isn't dragooned and on-message. Farage drinks and smokes and wants you to be happy, not safe or healthy.

    Yes Scotland is strongly anti-authoritarian, which is why the rather authoritarian SNP (routinely armed police!) sometimes seem at odds with the wider independence movement.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    @ Insto

    I've been following the two person discussion on polling as best I can! (Genuinely fascinating).

    But this -

    "We get better view of the underlying trends that the current methods being used for 'polls of polls' - essentially rolling averages - aren't getting close to."

    Do I read that correctly as 'the poll of polls is still not averaging things adequately/averagely right'??

    In which case -

    How do you know?

    And

    Is polling the indieref particularly/unusually difficult?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    "
    My prediction for this year is this…
    2014
    SNP 3
    Lab 2
    Con 1

    "

    http://iaindale.com/posts/2014/05/11/european-election-result-predictions-scotland

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. wee folding bike
    Member

    My guess would be that this month's poll of polls might not contain polls from the same organisations as last month's poll of polls.

    If you did it the other way round and used the most recent from all the same organisations then the time variable might not be constant, they could have been done on different dates.

    Yes, the idea of constant variables has long bothered me.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. wee folding bike
    Member

    And yes, the referendum is different. Polling companies use your previous voting behavious as a weighting factor for elections but there is no prior in this instance. As I recall part of the excuse for being so wildly wrong with the last election was that they had used Westminster weightings but people behaved differently for Holyrood.

    Or perhaps they just make it up. I had a call from a market research guy earlier but he wasn't able to explain why I should spend time on the phone with him so he gave in and hung up.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. Instography
    Member

    The two I've seen - John Curtice's on What Scotland Thinks and that Scot goes POP! site - are both pretty upfront about the limits. Essentially, they give too much influence either to outliers (for want of a better word) and old data. For instance, Curtice acknowledges that several polls by what he calls 'Yes friendly' companies pushes up the average, so he clearly doesn't believe it. Similarly, POP! retains in his rolling average data from Ipsos MORI that is three months old. Neither particularly good methods.

    The alternative is to try to estimate how 'Yes friendly' those friendly companies are or how unfriendly the less friendly are and directly adjust their estimates to take that into account. I have two methods for doing that but it's hard to say how good it is. Let's just say that it gives me another two perspectives on the data.

    The next thing to do is to work out a more realistic estimate of the turnout and what that does to the two sides. It seems doubtful that there will be an 80% turnout so who's "vote" is soft and what does that do to the polls?

    And what are the Don't Knows going to do? Simply deducting them is no good - they've just said they're certain to vote! If they do, they have to vote for someone. But what we see people doing is taking them out, assuming that they won't actually vote or that they'll split in proportion to those who do know how they'll vote.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    "they've just said they're certain to vote! If they do, they have to vote for someone"

    Not strictly true of course!

    I genuinely believe that there will be people - on the day - staring at the ballot paper.

    Not a lot - but more than at a 'normal' election.

    Some may well put blanks into the ballot boxes.

    Will they count as "spoiled"?

    Some will write things like 'DevoMax please' - probably a higher proportion than are 'normally' spoiled - but nothing like enough to bring the result into disrepute (or enough, if all were added to one side or the other, to alter the result!)

    There seems to be some evidence that the trend towards Yes has stalled. Conceivably all the Yesers have 'declared' or all the don't knows will eventually split between yes and no.

    Or maybe the (still) undecideds have decided not to decide until much closer to the poll day- which would (presumably) make it difficult for the pollsters!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The prime minister has insisted he is making an "unrelentingly positive" case for the Union ahead of the referendum on Scottish independence.

    "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27414810

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    "The prime minister has insisted he is making an "unrelentingly positive" case for the Union ahead of the referendum on Scottish independence."

    Has he revealed the name of the next country we'll attack after a No vote? That's a key doubt in the whole Better Together argument - they just won't say which country will be seeing the sharp end of our guns, bombs and missiles. I think we should be told.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. Instography
    Member

    I think 'stall' is a bit premature. This would be the sixth time Yes has 'stalled' since the start of 2012 and it's not consistently showing (in my data). But then in my data, Yes has never enjoyed the 'surge'. Whereas the headlines have had Yes cycling through the highlands (and Curtice seems to talk as though they might be at the top of the Bealach), I've tended to see them pootling along the coast. Sometimes a little hill has taken them inland but they've tended to come back to the shore. It's only a surge if you only started looking in Autumn 2013.

    That's not a great analogy but over the long term it's more or less true, whether you look over 30 years or just over the past 30 months. There's been a modest upward trend since early 2013. It might have stopped rising this past month but the trend is still up. It's just not rising fast enough to get to 50% by September.

    Still another £1m from the Weirs and a visit from Dave might give a wee boost.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

  17. crowriver
    Member

    Yes, but your use of "primarily" suggests you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote!

    No, because you said "a (desire to) move away from the party political system." I don't think that is the case. It's just mainstream political parties that some voters are moving away from. That may appear to be a fine distinction, but it's pretty fundamental.

    If it were a "move away from the party political system", we'd be seeing the rise of revolutionary/insurrectionary political movements, or some other alternative to political parties such as trades unions, mass protest movements, etc.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    "If it were not, we'd be seeing the rise of revolutionary/insurrectionary political movements, or some other alternative to political parties such as trades unions, mass protest movements, etc."

    Well that depends on definitions and timescales.

    Not sure if UK 'wants' revolution of an insurrectionist nature - or if 'separation' - or a vote against it would lead to that!

    But don't forget -

    "
    The Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) was an association of Scottish political parties, churches and other civic groups, that developed a framework for a Scottish devolution.[1] It is credited as having paved the way for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

    "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Constitutional_Convention

    Perhaps (whether Yes or No) there will be people wanting to create a similar 'civic' 'movement'(?) Existing political parties may or may not want to take part, or a body might be created that would prefer not to involve political parties.

    The future is still unwritten.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Independence Poll: Our bombshell survey shows one in three Scots will vote No due to dislike of Alex Salmond

    "

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-poll-bombshell-survey-shows-3544057

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Reading that Daily Record article is like watching a dog cheerfully eating vomit from the pavement.

    Pure Project Fear. Personalise, demonise, divide and rule.

    If we fall for this stuff the teaching profession will have to take a long hard look at itself.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "

    For those with an interest in politics, number-crunching the opinion polls in the run-up to an election is a strange kind of fun. You take the poll results, you run them through the relevant electoral system, you watch the who-wins-what prediction emerge; and you wait – like any true geek, in any field – for the moment when you can compare prediction with reality.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-apocalypse-now-a-new-land-later-1-3413016

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    "
    DAVID Cameron has said it is “right” the Scottish Parliament should get more powers if voters rejected independence.

    The Prime Minister gave his strongest signal yet that Holyrood should have significantly more tax-raising powers, saying it should have “greater responsibility for raising more of the money it spends”.

    Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh yesterday, Mr Cameron said: “Let me be absolutely clear. A vote for No is not a vote for ‘no change’.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/cameron-signals-more-tax-powers-if-scots-vote-no-1-3340931

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. Charterhall
    Member

    Glad to see DC getting the headline slot on Reporting Scotland yesterday, he was spot on with his answers and was even able to field the football question at the end. He's certainly better informed on Scottish football than I am !

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @pintail

    I was out with Yes Scotland last night and there was general jubilation amongst those that had seen the Reporting Scotland interview. The Prime Minister made it clear that a No vote leads to total uncertainty - we'll just get whatever Westminster decides, and that's a message that works quite well on the doorsteps. I think he should at least tell us which country we're planning to attack next.

    PS I'll bet I know less about Scottish football than you. I made a fool of myself once by claiming to be a fan of Lung of West Lothian.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. Instography
    Member

    So, IWRATS, you agree that generating uncertainty is a good campaign tactic?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    There's always uncertainty.

    "

    India's main opposition BJP has risen like a phoenix from the depths of despair.

    As the leads poured in on Friday morning, it was clear that the party is steaming ahead to its biggest victory in 30 years. This, after two losing two elections in a row - the party was able to mop up only 116 seats in 2009.

    Today, the BJP on its own is on course to win more than the 272 which it needs to gain a simple majority, and its 28-party coalition is leading the vote count in over 300 seats.

    "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27435647

    Now being called a 'landslide', pre-poll expectation was for another coalition!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. Instography
    Member

    I'm just interested in how each of the campaigns criticises the other on the basis of things they do themselves. The whole Project Fear / Project Dread thing is interesting. It's wrong to say, for instance, that independence causes uncertainty about anything (that's fear and scaremongering) but perfectly acceptable to claim that voting no means the end of devolution or permanent Tory government.

    And it suggests that fear / uncertainty works so we won't be too surprised when all the hope and aspiration drops away and the last 100 days become a competition to raise the levels of fear about what happens in either outcome.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    "And it suggests that fear / uncertainty works so we won't be too surprised when all the hope and aspiration drops away and the last 100 days become a competition to raise the levels of fear about what happens in either outcome."

    You might well be right.

    If so it might highlight the fact(?) that many of those in the current party political systems are more interested in their opponents than the people they claim/seek to 'represent'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. PS
    Member

    If so it might highlight the fact(?) that many of those in the current party political systems are more interested in their opponents than the people they claim/seek to 'represent'.

    Spot on.

    Looking in from the outside, far too many politicians focus on doing things to score points in the rather small and self-contained political world rather than achieve anything worthwhile (beyond their own climbing of the greasy pole).

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @insto

    "So, IWRATS, you agree that generating uncertainty is a good campaign tactic?"

    I very specifically do not think that, you naughty bicyclist. Our society does not deal well with the perception, evaluation and control of risk and its friend uncertainty. The pinnacle of this is people's reluctance to cycle due to its being 'dangerous'. In fact not cycling is dangerous as mortality is higher for non-cyclists, but people just can't put their forthcoming stroke into the same mental picture as the less likely HGV crushing their rib-cage.

    So here, an effective but shameful campaign tactic is to point to the other side and scream that their plans are 'uncertain'. Well welcome to planet earth. We seem to have exposed a real lapse in our education system when so many people appear to be incapable of critical and analytical thought. The referendum is largely about chosing which group of people will deal with uncertainties, not the elimination of uncertainty.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin