One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

If I were asked by them - same as any other telephone market survey - I'd
probably give them as wrong an answer as I could. Unless I'd agreed to
take part in it before being asked.

--
*I have my own little world - but it's OK...they know me here*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

People say they're going to vote one way, then vote differently. They're
not being deliberately deceptive, it's just that answering a poll
question isn't the same thing as casting a vote, and the floating voter
will float.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On 12/05/2015 07:45, harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.


--
Colin Bignell

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more sinister?

Rupert Murdoch and his editors are happy for people
to think they swing elections.
In fact they don't, but they don't like backing losers
and they're very good at identifying winners
well before time.

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have
recognised that electing Ed Miliband as
party leader would be electoral suicide,
compounded by having somebody called Balls
as Shadow Chancellor. Basically nobody will
want to vote for somebody who can be ridiculed
solely on account of their name. Previously
Balls had been able to hide behind Gordon Brown
and then Alastair Darling. Who also admittedly had
a funny name but wasn't high profile in the
minds of voters.

When the "Sun" got well stuck into Miliband quite
possibly a lot of those questioned didn't
want the polsters to think they'd been swayed
by Murdoch, or the media in general. Who all
mainly recognised Ed Miliband for the liability
he was. So they pretended they were going to vote
for him nevertheless to show their independence.
As if.


michael adams

....


....

On 12/05/2015 19:49, michael adams wrote:

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have
recognised that electing Ed Miliband as
party leader would be electoral suicide,
compounded by having somebody called Balls
as Shadow Chancellor.

What I would like to know is does Ed Miliband continue to receive his
salary whilst he is on holiday in Ibiza.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...n-holiday.html

--
Michael Chare

In article , Michael Chare
wrote:
On 12/05/2015 19:49, michael adams wrote:

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have recognised that electing
Ed Miliband as party leader would be electoral suicide, compounded by
having somebody called Balls as Shadow Chancellor.

What I would like to know is does Ed Miliband continue to receive his
salary whilst he is on holiday in Ibiza.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...n-holiday.html

Don't you get a paid holiday? Most people do

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In message , Huge
writes
On 2015-05-12, Michael Chare wrote:
On 12/05/2015 19:49, michael adams wrote:

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have
recognised that electing Ed Miliband as
party leader would be electoral suicide,
compounded by having somebody called Balls
as Shadow Chancellor.

What I would like to know is does Ed Miliband continue to receive his
salary whilst he is on holiday in Ibiza.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...7830/Ed-Miliba
nd-flies-to-Ibiza-on-holiday.html


Do you continue to receive your salary while you're on holiday?


Doesn't parliament work a bit like the education system in that they
have times when they are sitting, and times when they are not sitting.
I would have thought that the latter would have been the time to take
off on holiday. He is paid for 52 weeks of the year, is it not
unreasonable to expect him to turn up during "term time" ?

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Tue, 12 May 2015 21:02:49 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Doesn't parliament work a bit like the education system in that they
have times when they are sitting, and times when they are not sitting.
I would have thought that the latter would have been the time to take
off on holiday. He is paid for 52 weeks of the year, is it not
unreasonable to expect him to turn up during "term time" ?

Well, since Parliament doesn't sit again until 18th May...

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 07:45, harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing,

With many of them, that they were undecided about how they would vote.

but that thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

Yes, it isn't possible to be undecided when you vote,
you normally do have to decide who you will vote for.

The other problem with polls is that they don’t just
ask those whether they will bother to vote and only
consider what those who say they plan to vote say
who they will vote for.

Its hardly surprising that the polls all got it wrong
given those two factors.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 19:49, michael adams wrote:

Anyone but a die-hard Labour zealot would have
recognised that electing Ed Miliband as
party leader would be electoral suicide,
compounded by having somebody called Balls
as Shadow Chancellor.

What I would like to know is does Ed Miliband continue to receive his
salary whilst he is on holiday in Ibiza.

His MP's salary, of course he does, his electorate
was too stupid to give him the bum's rush.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...n-holiday.html

harryagain wrote

One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

Not with polls, because liars to pollsters can never be found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.

Because of the very large percentage of undecideds.

But all wrong in the same way.

And that is due to the usual group psychology
stuff, the polls mostly feed off each other when
there are so many undecideds.

And the same degree.
This implies collusion.

Only for those into conspiracy theorys.

To what end?

It isnt what produced that result.

They crib off of one another to save money

Nope, they have to guess when there are so
many undecideds and its hardly surprising that
they guessed it would be close given the first
coalition govt in quite a while.

or is there something more sinister?

Nope. The only real sinister possibility is that
they decided to claim that the result would be
close so that some voters would vote to ensure
that someone would get an absolute majority
because they didn’t like the idea of another
coalition govt. Very unlikely indeed IMO and
doesn’t explain the result that SNP got, that
not one of the polls managed to predict.

ALL it shows is that polls are useless when there
are so many undecided voters and the polls don’t
even attempt to just poll those who do claim that
they will be voting.

On 12/05/2015 22:57, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to
be found out.

Not with polls, because liars to pollsters can never be found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.

Because of the very large percentage of undecideds.

But all wrong in the same way.

And that is due to the usual group psychology
stuff, the polls mostly feed off each other when
there are so many undecideds.

And the same degree.
This implies collusion.

Only for those into conspiracy theorys.

To what end?

It isnt what produced that result.

They crib off of one another to save money

Nope, they have to guess when there are so
many undecideds and its hardly surprising that
they guessed it would be close given the first
coalition govt in quite a while.

or is there something more sinister?

Nope. The only real sinister possibility is that
they decided to claim that the result would be
close so that some voters would vote to ensure
that someone would get an absolute majority
because they didn’t like the idea of another
coalition govt. Very unlikely indeed IMO and
doesn’t explain the result that SNP got, that
not one of the polls managed to predict.

ALL it shows is that polls are useless when there
are so many undecided voters and the polls don’t
even attempt to just poll those who do claim that
they will be voting.

At least those who took money for predicting the sex of unborn babies
would refund the half they got wrong

On 12 May 2015, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk grunted:

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit they
vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging on in the
pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the Tories etc
etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never hear it the
other way round, do you?

Example - the day of the election my 18-year-old nephew posted a picture of
himself on Facebook wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Please God anything but
Tory" or similar... I can barely imagine any kid having the balls to do
likewise with a Labour.


--
David

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 22:57, Rod Speed wrote:
harryagain wrote

One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to
be found out.

Not with polls, because liars to pollsters can never be found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.

Because of the very large percentage of undecideds.

But all wrong in the same way.

And that is due to the usual group psychology
stuff, the polls mostly feed off each other when
there are so many undecideds.

And the same degree.
This implies collusion.

Only for those into conspiracy theorys.

To what end?

It isnt what produced that result.

They crib off of one another to save money

Nope, they have to guess when there are so
many undecideds and its hardly surprising that
they guessed it would be close given the first
coalition govt in quite a while.

or is there something more sinister?

Nope. The only real sinister possibility is that
they decided to claim that the result would be
close so that some voters would vote to ensure
that someone would get an absolute majority
because they didn’t like the idea of another
coalition govt. Very unlikely indeed IMO and
doesn’t explain the result that SNP got, that
not one of the polls managed to predict.

ALL it shows is that polls are useless when there
are so many undecided voters and the polls don’t
even attempt to just poll those who do claim that
they will be voting.

At least those who took money for predicting the sex of unborn babies
would refund the half they got wrong

Pollsters aren't that stupid.

In message , Lobster
writes
On 12 May 2015, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk grunted:

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit they
vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging on in the
pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the Tories etc
etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never hear it the
other way round, do you?

Example - the day of the election my 18-year-old nephew posted a picture of
himself on Facebook wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Please God anything but
Tory" or similar... I can barely imagine any kid having the balls to do
likewise with a Labour.

:-)

Guilty as charged!

Mind, with this constituency and Peter Lilley as candidate there is
little point voting elsewhere.

I think floating voters decided to play safe.



--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Lobster wrote:
It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit
they vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging
on in the pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the
Tories etc etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never
hear it the other way round, do you?

You don't read the posts on here? ;-)

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/05/2015 21:14, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 21:02:49 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Doesn't parliament work a bit like the education system in that they
have times when they are sitting, and times when they are not sitting.
I would have thought that the latter would have been the time to take
off on holiday. He is paid for 52 weeks of the year, is it not
unreasonable to expect him to turn up during "term time" ?

Well, since Parliament doesn't sit again until 18th May...

But will he be fined for taking his kids out of school during term time?.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 12/05/2015 21:14, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 21:02:49 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Doesn't parliament work a bit like the education system in that they
have times when they are sitting, and times when they are not sitting.
I would have thought that the latter would have been the time to take
off on holiday. He is paid for 52 weeks of the year, is it not
unreasonable to expect him to turn up during "term time" ?

Well, since Parliament doesn't sit again until 18th May...

But will he be fined for taking his kids out of school during term time?.

He left his kids behind.

harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?



With people like this out there (warning - extremely foul-mouthed rant
not for the faint-hearted), it's no surprise that people keep their
intentions to themselves.

http://www.thestepfordstudent.co.uk/...unt-if-i-want/

In article ,
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
With people like this out there (warning - extremely foul-mouthed rant
not for the faint-hearted), it's no surprise that people keep their
intentions to themselves.

At one time I'd probably have answered a market survey truthfully. But I
get so many phone calls claiming to just want my opinion - despite being
registered with the TP scheme - that I'll no longer answer anything like
that truthfully, unless I knew before hand it was genuine, and I'd agreed
to it.

I usually answer such phone calls by asking for their billing address so I
can charge them for my answers. After all, they're not working for free.
;-)

--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 12 May 2015 17:20:37 UTC+1, harry wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?

You can't even spell *Poles* properly ;-)

In article ,
Lobster writes:
On 12 May 2015, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk grunted:

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit they
vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging on in the
pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the Tories etc
etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never hear it the
other way round, do you?

That may well be part of it, but it seems that a significant number of
people didn't make up their minds until entering the polling station.
Conservatives won out here - these people are not necessarily embarrassed
to say they voted Conservative, but genuinely didn't know they were
going to until polling day. I think many of them were not naturally
Conservative voters and might have been waiting for something from one
of the other parties to make them vote differently, but none of the other
parties pulled anything viable out of the hat.

I got a sense of the possible result a few weeks before when I popped
in to Travis Perkins early one morning. There were a few van loads of
builders standing around the counter discussing their votes, and they were
mostly going to be voting Conservative, fearing labour would screw up
their industry, which they regard as recovering very well at the moment.
If Labour had lost the trust of these folks, it didn't bode well for
Labour's result.

The fear of a Labour-SNP alliance when the polls were showing Labour was
going to crash in Scotland was also a significant effect in people not
voting Labour. It was no use Labour saying it wouldn't do that - they
would virtually have been forced to do so if the Conservatives could
only muster a minority governmant without enough support from elsewhere.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I usually answer such phone calls by asking for their billing address
so I can charge them for my answers. After all, they're not working for
free. ;-)

If they are political activists then yes, they *are* working for free.

The polls ain't conducted by what you'd call political activists. Or
rather, I'd hope not. ;-)

--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
Lobster writes:
On 12 May 2015, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk grunted:

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit they
vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging on in the
pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the Tories etc
etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never hear it the
other way round, do you?

That may well be part of it, but it seems that a significant number of
people didn't make up their minds until entering the polling station.
Conservatives won out here - these people are not necessarily embarrassed
to say they voted Conservative, but genuinely didn't know they were
going to until polling day. I think many of them were not naturally

There was something on the BBC site about how Labour's own pollsters got
a more accurate (pessimistic, they called it) result. Apparently, the
difference was that they asked respondents to think about the issues at
stake before asking whom they would vote for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32606713

Conservative voters and might have been waiting for something from one
of the other parties to make them vote differently, but none of the other
parties pulled anything viable out of the hat.

I got a sense of the possible result a few weeks before when I popped
in to Travis Perkins early one morning. There were a few van loads of
builders standing around the counter discussing their votes, and they were
mostly going to be voting Conservative, fearing labour would screw up
their industry, which they regard as recovering very well at the moment.
If Labour had lost the trust of these folks, it didn't bode well for
Labour's result.

The fear of a Labour-SNP alliance when the polls were showing Labour was
going to crash in Scotland was also a significant effect in people not
voting Labour. It was no use Labour saying it wouldn't do that - they
would virtually have been forced to do so if the Conservatives could
only muster a minority governmant without enough support from elsewhere.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
With people like this out there (warning - extremely foul-mouthed rant
not for the faint-hearted), it's no surprise that people keep their
intentions to themselves.

At one time I'd probably have answered a market survey truthfully. But I
get so many phone calls claiming to just want my opinion - despite being
registered with the TP scheme - that I'll no longer answer anything like
that truthfully, unless I knew before hand it was genuine, and I'd agreed
to it.

AAMOI, why answer at all? I'd just put the phone down.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?



With people like this out there (warning - extremely foul-mouthed rant
not for the faint-hearted), it's no surprise that people keep their
intentions to themselves.


I'm guessing from the replies that the URL I posted got blocked in some
newsreaders because it contains the c-word. If anyone is still
interested in why some Tories might be a bit reticent, here is the home
page for the site. The article I linked to is third on the left. But
like I say, it's not for the faint-hearted.

http://www.thestepfordstudent.co.uk/

I think it's useful to know that there are people like this out there.

"Etaoin Shrdlu" wrote in message
. uk...
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
Lobster writes:
On 12 May 2015, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here.me.uk
grunted:

What it means is that people told the pollsters the same thing, but
that
thing wasn't what all of them did in the end.

It's the 'shy Tory' effect, I'm sure. People are embarrassed to admit
they
vote Conservative. Think how common it is to hear people banging on in
the
pub or round the office water cooler about how they hate the Tories etc
etc, how Labour will sort it all out etc etc. You just never hear it the
other way round, do you?

That may well be part of it, but it seems that a significant number of
people didn't make up their minds until entering the polling station.
Conservatives won out here - these people are not necessarily embarrassed
to say they voted Conservative, but genuinely didn't know they were
going to until polling day. I think many of them were not naturally

There was something on the BBC site about how Labour's own pollsters got a
more accurate (pessimistic, they called it) result. Apparently, the
difference was that they asked respondents to think about the issues at
stake before asking whom they would vote for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32606713

Yeah, and it is clear from the fact that their undecided percentage
was half what it was for the traditional polls that their survey did
in fact get those voters to think about the issues and presumably
made them do what they would have had to do before they voted.

Conservative voters and might have been waiting for something from one
of the other parties to make them vote differently, but none of the other
parties pulled anything viable out of the hat.

I got a sense of the possible result a few weeks before when I popped
in to Travis Perkins early one morning. There were a few van loads of
builders standing around the counter discussing their votes, and they
were
mostly going to be voting Conservative, fearing labour would screw up
their industry, which they regard as recovering very well at the moment.
If Labour had lost the trust of these folks, it didn't bode well for
Labour's result.

The fear of a Labour-SNP alliance when the polls were showing Labour was
going to crash in Scotland was also a significant effect in people not
voting Labour. It was no use Labour saying it wouldn't do that - they
would virtually have been forced to do so if the Conservatives could
only muster a minority governmant without enough support from elsewhere.

In article ,
Etaoin Shrdlu writes:
harryagain wrote:
One thing they say about liars.
They have to have a good memory in order to be consistant and not to be
found out.

But these polls were consistant and wrong.
But all wrong in the same way.
And the same degree.
This implies collusion.
To what end?
They crib off of one another to save money or is there something more
sinister?



With people like this out there (warning - extremely foul-mouthed rant
not for the faint-hearted), it's no surprise that people keep their
intentions to themselves.

http://www.thestepfordstudent.co.uk/...unt-if-i-want/

Student political views tend to be more at one extreme or the other,
because they are at an age where they think they already know everything,
but their experience of real life is actually very limited at that time.
It's not until they enter the real world of working and supporting
themselves and their families that their political views mature, and
in most cases change significantly from what they thought as students.
Probably most often moving from strong left-wing views to centre or even
right of centre leaning, but they almost always change in some respect
as they experience the real world and have to support themselves.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 14/05/2015 11:13, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Student political views tend to be more at one extreme or the other,
because they are at an age where they think they already know everything,
but their experience of real life is actually very limited at that time.
It's not until they enter the real world of working and supporting
themselves and their families that their political views mature, and
in most cases change significantly from what they thought as students.
Probably most often moving from strong left-wing views to centre or even
right of centre leaning, but they almost always change in some respect
as they experience the real world and have to support themselves.


And this (as someone who has been through exactly the process described
above) is why I am very uneasy about giving 16 year olds the vote. They
wont even be in a position to remember what all the politicians said
last time.


--
CB

In article ,
CB wrote:
And this (as someone who has been through exactly the process described
above) is why I am very uneasy about giving 16 year olds the vote. They
wont even be in a position to remember what all the politicians said
last time.

If only the politicians themselves remembered what they promised 'last
time'. ;-)

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
And this (as someone who has been through exactly the process
described above) is why I am very uneasy about giving 16 year olds
the vote.

Which is why the Left want to do it,

And if the right had their way, it would only be male landowners. ;-)

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"CB" wrote in message ...
On 14/05/2015 11:13, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Student political views tend to be more at one extreme or the other,
because they are at an age where they think they already know everything,
but their experience of real life is actually very limited at that time.
It's not until they enter the real world of working and supporting
themselves and their families that their political views mature, and
in most cases change significantly from what they thought as students.
Probably most often moving from strong left-wing views to centre or even
right of centre leaning, but they almost always change in some respect
as they experience the real world and have to support themselves.


And this (as someone who has been through exactly the process described
above) is why I am very uneasy about giving 16 year olds the vote. They
wont even be in a position to remember what all the politicians said last
time.

Trouble is that that is true whatever age they are allowed to vote.