Reply With Quotespot on
Hall Of Fame
Well if we are going to use polls to gauge popularity, then I will refer to whatscotlandthinks. It uses various polls from up down the UK, over the course of period of time. So as of today, the current poll on how Scotland would vote in a GE is 47% SNP, 28% Cons and 14% Lab. The current poll on how Nicola Sturgeon is doing as FM is Fairly Well 34%, Very Well 19%, Fairly Bad 14%, Very Bad 23% and 10% don’t know.Originally Posted by Getintaethem
Those figures don’t back up what SKY have said. Couple that with complete SNP domination of the last GE here in Scotland, again with a big win (albeit not majority) in the last Scottish Election, with the public knowing indyref2 was likely possibility! Plus the fact that the majority of Scots don’t want Brexit and the Cons are pushing for a hard Brexit? im sorry but I cannot for the life of me see how the Cons or Theresa May are rating higher than Nicola Sturgeon. As I have said, I’m not a NS or SNP fan, but no one can deny she and the party are popular among the masses here in Scotland. Ruth Davidson is gaining popularity, but to say Theresa May is doing a better job in a country that is vastly against Brexit and Austerity….? It doesn’t make any sense.
I know you are saying the margin for error is so vast it cant be wrong, but I would like to see the demographics on this.
As for SKY, they are propaganda specialists. Their anti Trump rhetoric lately has been laid on so thick, its disgusting. Their complete lack of impartiality in the last independence referendum was sickening to watch. Adam Bolton and Kay Burly were horrendous and were sickly in their approach to presenting any piece to do with it. I've no doubt they were pro-union but there was no impartiality and attacked anyone who thought otherwise. Using them as a basis of truth and matter of fact is probably bout as bad as it can get.
Last edited by Stupie82; 21-03-2017 at 03:11 PM.
Hall Of Fame
spot on
Hall Of Fame
How people would vote in a GE is not entirely applicable here. You may think the leader of a party is doing badly but still vote for that party over the alternatives. Case in point, the SNP polling has not changed vastly but the last three polls in whatscotlandthinks does show a significant trend of lower support for Sturgeon (very well or well) with the last three between 50% and 53% whereas before the polls were showing (very well or well) between 60% and as high as 75%.
With regards to SKY being bias and therefore the poll being bias, as I said above, polls are run by third parties and the body that looks into these Chairman is Professor Curtice. The guy behind whatscotlandthinks. I believe the methodologies of both are sound. In actual fact, the polling companies in the UK go to great lengths to reduce any hint of bias. (bearing in mind my above comments around sampling errors that happened in the 2015 GE etc.)
You do raise an interesting point with regards to this poll though. As the whatscotlandthinks poll is run more often then there is more validity to the general trend than the SKY poll. The two are also asking different questions and the SKY one is comparing party leaders so it is hard to directly compare. But what the hell!
very well or well - 53%, fairly badly or bad - 37% with 10% don't know - Poll on WhatScotlandThinks
good 42%, bad 54% with 4% don't know - Sky Poll
One of the differences between the two polls was the SKY poll was done right after Sturgeon made her announcement. Although polls can show trends they are only a snapshot of what people are thinking at that point in time. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there has been a 5% swing since her announcement (i.e. 10% total). There was a 4% increase in (very well/well) between Feb and March - so large variances on this poll are common. With the "dont know's" far lower in the SKY Poll also this would explain the differences in the polls. Remember there is also a margin of error in these polls.
Although I was winding it up a little in my original post of the Sky Poll, my honest opinion is that the poll from SKY is not bias or widely wrong. However, there is a always a slim possibility that it could be an outlier or it was a widely inaccurate sample. I do believe that the timing of it is significant and probably reflects people's opinions of her announcement being badly timed. Also, you can see from whatscotlandthinks, that opinions on leaders have a higher variance than polls around parties because thinking someone is doing a good or bad job is less fundamental to what party you will vote for and is therefore more open to events that happen. They do, however, provide general trends. This is why SKY rerunning their poll (like whatscotlandthinks) is important. You never know, it could show a large swing in her favour in a months time... polls are snapshots.
Edit: although polls may not have bias in them, the media can represent them incorrectly or in a biased manner. The Independent is a case in point - in my opinion either bias or ignorance. As SKY gave the headline figures, I cannot see any bias in their presentation of them.
Last edited by Getintaethem; 21-03-2017 at 04:33 PM.
Hall Of Fame
Loved that post Stupie .
Sky are certainly biased as bad as the good old beeb.. i got interviewed on sky here in Aberdeen Sept 2014 they were biased alright right in front of me.
Rather disappointing they knew how to play the game Westminster way that's for sure.
Hall Of Fame
Are you saying that because SKY is biased then the polls that they commission are also biased. Because if you are then you are wrong.
Hall Of Fame
Stupie - sorry, I did not respond to you wanting to see the demographics on the SKY poll.
What the polling companies do is take the raw data they get back from the people polled (e.g. who they will vote for). They also get their demographic data, such as age, location, who they voted for in the last election, wealth category (by postcode) and some other things. They then run these figures through the demographics of people that voted in the past, intention to vote and use statistical weighting algorithms to make the people that are polled more representative of the people who vote. All the polling companies use different weighting methods and they are all looking to improve but it is also a big reason why some polling companies constantly poll Labour, for example, higher than others. And also the reason why the BBC etc. use a poll of polls to try and reduce errors and spot underlying trends. The polling companies have to make this data available on request (both the raw data and the weighted data) to prove there is no bias in their weighting.
This can cause issues. For example, far more people say they will vote than actually vote. It happens in all polls! So, for example, the polling company could assume that x percentage of SNP voters (just using them as an example) will vote based on previous voting patterns but a lesser percentage actually vote in comparison to other parties. Predicting turnout is also an issue because a greater turnout can benefit one party over another... also the weather, local issues can skew local results in ways that national polls cannot predict. The list is almost endless. They have measures in place to reduce these effects but they can still get it wrong.
Mostly polling works (within the error of margin), although issues with this (called sampling errors) in the 1992 election was widely accepted as to why the polls were out. More tories voted than they were expecting. Although I have not looked into the last GE, I remember at the time, it was widely anticipated that sampling errors were the cause of Labour support being consistently over estimated and Tories being under estimated.
This is also the issue why there were no exit polls at Brexit or Scottish inde ref. There just are not enough referendums for exit polls (80% in a ref and 60% in a GE shows demographics between the two are very different). For Brexit, I believe the pollsters predicted more younger voters would vote than actually happened. Although they were not wrong outside the margin of error - they were consistently wrong.
Hall Of Fame
No i am not saying that .
You weren't there when i got interviewed unless you were at the NO table.
What i will say is the lass that interviewed me spoke to me later .And later agreed with what i had said but she got pulled away when i started to mention trident the cost the damage it could cause then went to the next person from the campaign.
Hall Of Fame
Firstly you post loads and say a lot on here you just love the union it appears.
What about the dept 1.7 trillion dept who are you going to blame on that.
Prefer you didn't answer with a big speel as I'm dyslexic.
Hall Of Fame
Our debt was increased during the good times by the Labour government and when the crash came tax revenues tanked plus we had to bail out the banks. We are in debt because the UK wanted to maintain spending (both Labour and Tories) over and above what we earned through tax so our debt escalated dramatically - even though we reduced spending.
I missed the SNP wanting to spend less money - all I heard was how bad reducing spending was... so I presume the SNP would want the UK to have even higher debt than £1.7M?
Hall Of Fame
Who do you think would do a better job in the Scottish parliament? It's fine bashing the SNPs record but I can't see much in the way of talent on the opposition. Who am I missing & why? Where's the saviour of Scottish education?
Posting Permissions