Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember the 2009 Euro elections when ICM was the pollster
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember the 2009 Euro elections when ICM was the pollster most out with UKIP
Inevitably after last night’s ICM poll which has UKIP down to 7% with the CON and LAN level-pegging it is inevitable that people will focus on the firm particularly its record with Farage’s party.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A furious debate is taking place on Wikipedia as to whether or not UKIP should have a special section in the "Next UK General Election" article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#UKIP.3F
ICM overstated Labour by 7 points and understated the SNP by 10 points. In their defence, YouGov were also crap, overstating Labour by 9 points in their poll with the same fieldwork period as ICM's. The best pollster at that election was Ipsos MORI: their final poll was over 2 weeks before polling day and got the SNP spot on, and got Labour and the Lib Dems within the margin of error.
I seem to remember that ICM were also the worst pollster at the 2005 UK GE in the Scotland only polling.
ICM produces results the Guardian would rather not report and Yougov produces results The Sun doesn't like to report.
Maybe they should swap pollsters.
I'm not really sure that making a comparison with the EU2009 elections is terribly helpful since its a different system and a long time ago. What about ICM's performance saying in LE2010 or LE2011 or LE2012 or LE2013 or GE2010...for example... Or London Mayoralty?
How close to the result were they then? They are the Gold Standard for a reason and have been for years on PB.
Your comment is a distortion
Ipsos MORI carried out a poll in early February 2011 that was a lot closer to the final result than ICM managed over a month closer to polling day. Ditto the Scottish Opinion poll for the Mail on Sunday with the same fieldwork dates as ICM.
Please note that the early February Ipsos MORI had the SNP ahead of Labour, so it is simply not true that "the other firms had Labour ahead".
" Patients could not choose to die at times that suited the NHS, she said, and it made “no sense” that the care they needed was not available around the clock. “Some of what we uncovered was truly dreadful, especially for those patients whose condition deteriorated at the start of a bank holiday weekend, when consultants were off on holiday and junior doctors left in charge,” she told The Telegraph.
The review frequently uncovered accounts in which families were shouted at by nurses for trying to give water to desperately thirsty relatives, she said. Too many staff had misinterpreted guidance which in fact says that nutrition and hydration should be given for as long as possible. Equally common were tales in which patients had been left to “get on with” dying – without their care being reviewed, or even observations taken.
The report described “serious concern” about the lack of staff to care for the dying, and their level of competence. “The review panel repeatedly heard stories of poor standards of basic care and a lack of staff and equipment over weekends and out of hours; this also prevented some people from being able to come home to die, as they wished. There were numerous accounts of no access to the palliative care teams outside office hours and at weekends, both in acute hospitals and in the community,” it found.
Decisions to place patients on the care pathway were being taken by the most junior inexperienced doctors, often in the middle of the night. Repeatedly, the panel — made up of medical, legal, ethical experts, and patient campaigners — heard accounts of relatives who left a patient who was able to talk to them, only to return and find that without warning, the patient was heavily sedated, and unable to eat or drink..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181143/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-failings-shock-independent-panel.html
“Among the worst stories were of people on the Liverpool Care Pathway for days, going into weeks, without communication or review or discussion; and also desperate stories of desperate people who are longing for a drink of water who were, through misunderstanding of the Liverpool Care Pathway and poor care, denied a drink.”
Dr Dennis Cox, chairman of the clinical sub group of the panel, added: “When we started to meet the families to discuss their stories we were genuinely shocked to hear what had been happening.”
The panel was disturbed that the end-of-life care regime was being used “as an excuse for poor-quality care”. Lady Neuberger said the panel was so concerned by what it had encountered that it had agreed, at its own initiative, to continue reviewing the progress of the NHS until significant changes were made.
She said the group was suspicious that the treatment of the dying betrayed “a considerable amount of age discrimination” in the way the NHS dealt with the elderly, a finding that echoed the report of the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire Hospital Foundation trust.
If you don't want to discuss Scottish politics on a blog about UK politics then feel free to campaign for a Yes vote. No objections from me.
Labour's 24 vs 15.7% is where they overstated a major party at the expense of others.
On the previous thread he repeatedly asked why I hadn't published the July 2008 ARSE prediction for the following general election despite the fact that I had advised him both yesterday morning and evening that no such prediction existed.
The summer of 2008 was taken up with the US presidential election for which my ARSE enjoyed considerable success.
I'm of the view that on this issue "Stuart Dickson" has achieved troll status and should be treated accordingly.
"Just in time" might be OK for supermarket deliveries, but "just enough when things are quiet" is inadequate in a hospital.
Astounding to think he could have been Labour leader.
I realise that you are enjoying dancing on the head of a pin with the "July" and "summer" bits, but let's be grown ups here: did you or did you not publish a UK GE ARSE during 2008? And if you did, please provide the details so that we can compare them with the actual result.
According to the DT - most of the trusts that were failing are improving - frankly I'm pretty impressed by that. Failing organisations with chronic mgt issues usually get a great deal worse as the good staff leave and no one any good wants to join - which is why we see schools closed and re-opened with a new name/regime when things have gone too far.
Why the Tories are to blame for things that happened before they were in power looks like the desperate straw-clutching it is from Mr Burnham. And claiming his recommendations weren't followed? Eh? The Coalition has had the courage for a full drains up on the NHS - something Labour never did.
"The publication of a review of high mortality rates at the 14 NHS Trusts, is likely to intensify a political row. Mr Burnham hits back in an article for the Telegraph website and claims the Conservatives must also accept some responsibility. He says that warnings he left when leaving office were not heeded. The row appears to mark an end to a fragile truce over poor hospital care. Following the mid-Staffs scandal, the Prime Minister did not seek to blame Mr Burnham.
Up to 13,000 patients may have died avoidably since 2005 at the hospitals involved in today’s review. Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS in England, is expected to warn of ongoing difficulties at about 10 of the trusts and hit squads will be sent in to close some services and rectify the problems. Downing Street said that executives should be held accountable and that “entire boards” could be sacked.
The Telegraph understands that death rates at nine of the trusts have improved since the Coalition came to power, with the situation deteriorating at five. Experts claim that the death rates at some trusts are worse than at Mid-Staffs, where an inquiry blamed abysmal care for up to 1,300 deaths. Prof Sir Brian Jarman, of Imperial College London, who compiles mortality statistics, said yesterday that he had written to Mr Burnham, then still in office, in March 2010 warning of unusually high death rates at 25 NHS trusts – including seven of those now under investigation. He said: “Effectively nothing happened”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10181220/Thousands-may-have-died-because-of-Labour-NHS-failings-Tory-MPs-claim.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"Six of the 14 hospitals which have been subject of Professor Keogh’s review were on the original list sent to Mr Burnham, now Labour’s shadow health secretary: Basildon, Tameside, Colchester, Blackpool, George Eliot in Warwickshire and United Lincolnshire.
Separately, questions in Parliament suggested more than 1,500 further representations were made to Labour ministers about the trusts with high death rates.
They included over 400 letters about United Lincolnshire, 300 letters about Blackpool and over 200 letters about Basildon...
And Labour's response?
A source close to Ed Miliband said: ‘In every one of these hospital trusts we are seeing standards declining, not because of what Andy Burnham did. This government has spent £3 billion on an unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS.'
‘We will reject what is a political attempt by this government to undermine the health service.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364765/20-000-extra-NHS-deaths-Labours-watch-amid-calls-site-inspectors-struggling-hospital.html#ixzz2ZBhpoEfF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There was NO July 2008 UK ARSE projection.
As for the rest of 2008 I'd be pleased for you to find a projection for the UK ....
Titters ....
That's a clue ....
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2013/07/15/20002-20130715ARTFIG00446-les-economistes-doutent-de-la-reprise-annoncee-par-hollande.php
"Yet politicians should beware of using this argument as an excuse to pursue preoccupations of their own which few voters share. A good example of this occurred at the end of June in the form of the so-called Alternative Queen’s Speech, a raft of measures (why do measures always arrive on rafts?) put forward by a number of Tory backbenchers which are, according to Peter Bone MP, designed to “recapture the common ground, where most views are”.
I decided to put this contention to the test in a poll. As I suspected, it turns out that many of the proposed new laws cover ground which is neither central nor common.
Mr Bone’s favourite among this assortment of “true blue bills” is the proposal to name the August Bank Holiday “Margaret Thatcher Day”. Unfortunately it is also the least popular. Only 13% of voters thought this was a good idea (and only 9% of those who were told the idea had been put forward by Conservative MPs); two thirds did not. Even Tory voters disagreed with the policy by a margin of 23 points.
The idea of allowing employees to opt out of the minimum wage was also strikingly unpopular, with only 23% agreeing. The suggestion of abolishing the Department of Energy and Climate Change won over a full quarter of the electorate, while privatising the BBC amassed the support of 28%. Less than a third also approved of scrapping the office of Deputy Prime Minister and ending subsidies to wind farms.
I make no particular judgment on whether these are good ideas or not, or whether they constitute the “proper conservative policies” that Mr Bone and his colleagues claim (though it is at least debatable in some cases, such as banning the burka – how many Tories entered politics in order to tell people what to wear?) The point is that these proposals are supposed to be surpassingly popular, the antidote to compromise and muddle, the “mish-mash of inconsistent ideas that satisfy no-one”.
Yet at least as instructive as the proportion of people agreeing with each proposal is the number who could not rouse themselves to an opinion one way or the other. For example, some (actually 39%, I can reveal) supported removing some of the UK’s waters from the Common Fisheries Policy, but nearly half had no view either way... read more http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/lord-ashcroft.html
I do recall that when Yougov did the first Scotland-wide poll in early 2005, and found the Scottish LDs at about 20%, you dismissed it as a "voodoo" poll.
And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage .
I suppose it is all part of the greater good for Ed Milliband to enter Number 10 by climbing over a pile of bodies.
I despair.
I'm sure they'll come first in the Euro elections. I don't think that will have huge GE implications.
"And the response is not to aknowledge the serious failings of the NHS, it is to see polling advantage ."
It seems you haven't yet understood what this site is about. The clue is in the title.
Plenty of chat rooms about....
For all its idiosyncracies, Jacks ARSE seems surprisingly accurate. He should market it to the papers. Where there is muck there is brass.
"Winning in 2015 will mean more than devising the most eye-catching ways of clamping down on criminals and foreigners. We certainly need to deliver on immigration, crime and welfare reform, but it is at least as important for the Tories to be a competent and united party of government that can be trusted on the economy and public services (which, incidentally, merited scarcely a mention in the Alternative Queen’s Speech). Rather than play fantasy politics we need to respond to the country's anxieties and aspirations, not least those of people who may never have voted Conservative before."
In 2009 all the pollsters overestimated UKIP but ICM didn't.
Which is a good indicator for now.
That's my spin and I'm sticking to it.
I see neither party really looking for solutions.
And I think there are a few more NHS scandals brewing that will see the light in time. I can see them being quite an issue at the next election.
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Prof Brian Jarman of Imperial Coll repeats criticism of Lab over NHS failings -"there was political pressure for information to be ignored"
Your comprehension has deteriorated since your release from rehab. Who'd have thought it possible?
It's plausible that ICM would have a problem with shy UKIP voters, but the important thing here is the change in the UKIP vote - why were ICM polling so many UKIP voters two months ago, but not now?
My favoured explanation is that it is becoming harder for ICM to find a random sample, and so the weightings they have to apply to their sample are becoming larger - there were a lot of C1 and C2 voters missing this month, as well as people who would admit to voting for the Coalition parties in 2010 - notably more people in the ICM sample say they voted Labour in 2010 than Conservative. I'm not taking this as a sign that the ballot boxes were stuffed in 2010, but just that opinion polling is hard because people misremember, lie, or are not equally likely to be part of the poll sample.
The effect of these weightings is to reduce the effective sample size, and so increase the margin of error, producing larger random swings from poll to poll.
We've had the CQC, MidStaffs, the others like MidStaffs, all the regulators saying they were under political pressure to report Good News, gagging orders, Bristol heart, now LCP.
A veritable slew of scandals that touch all areas of performance.
Andy Burnham is still very touchy - he needs replacing. No contrition at all.
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Andy Burnham rejects claims last Labour Govt ignored bad news on NHS - "I don't accept this attack on the integrity of the last Govt"
Con: 31
Lab: 39
LibD: 13
UKIP: 11
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Alternative-Queens-Speech-poll-Full-tables.pdf
So it's possible that although the gold standard for normal politics, their model isn't ideal when there's a fourth party butting in.
Nick, have you made the shortlist for Broxtowe PPC or do you need a hand from the Broxtowe Jacobite hordes ??
He put in a very combative performance.
Both car crashes in waiting.
This culture goes to the top, so I have a certain sympathy for Andy Burnham. I suspect that he was informed of the good news by his "yes men". He should have got out to see the coalface in a few of these backwaters to find out for himself. Instead he saw Potemkin villages.
He is no worse (and little better) than most ministers in this. Remember Patricia Hewitts "best year ever" announcement, while the Stafford scandal was brewing and junior doctors training was being shredded?
But it didn't happen. Until now. Maybe they've wised up politically. Labour has a huge amount to be deeply ashamed of in its record in power. From energy policy, to 'no money left', to immigration, to Iraq, to placing lefties in all management positions across the public sector and its quangoes, to pretty much every area of government - they sucked. The NHS is no different. Labour badly, badly mismanaged and, as usual, all was subordinated to the needs of spin and targets. The UK's public sector is a sea of waste, incompetence, failure and lefty tribalism - and is ripe for reform and the therapeutic effects of 'sunlight' and transparency.
I think the coalition has now developed a taste for exposing Labour's dire record. It hurts Labour and is like shooting fish in a barrel. We'll no doubt see ALOT more of it in the run up to 2015.
The legend that "A picture paints a thousand words" must now be proven wrong. These silly data-wrapper charts are neither informative nor of value (unlike pixels, bytes and band-width).
Please, please, please can Junior ask his dad to desist! This site is not for art-skool wannabies....
2. I would tend to think that polling by size of settlement is more important than by region. Tell me how people in settlements between 10,000 and 100,000 will vote, and I will tell you the election result, kind of thing.
I don't mind Mr Burnham - but his defensiveness and angry man/it wasn't me guv is totally misjudged. Prof Jarman showed him how to do it on Today - be measured, have facts and don't get stroppy when you're talking about thousands of dead.
Burnham acted like these were just stats to be argued about - not people who experienced dreadful deaths. He'd never talk like that about Hillsborough.
Mr. Brooke, are you suggesting Burnham has overdone the mascara?
I suspect it's a makeup problem. pasty skin burned red in heat and wrong colour of powder.
More on last nights Newsnight...
Otherwise there's no test other than the final one before the election which has any validity. The belief that ICM is the gold standard is based on 3 final day polls. Slightly unfair to the dozens that are taken earlier and which establish or otherwise the various pollsters reputations.
So its Burnham vs Prof Jarmann - its a loser to go up against an eminent expert and claim its all someone else's fault.
Who advised Andy to do all these media slots clearly isn't his friend - the more he appears, the worse the impression is of a greasypole politician who is covering his arse and not really that bothered about the dead.
For instance:
Jill Hood @JillHood8
Will never get used to my fathers death at Stafford Hospital as being described by Burnham just a few minutes ago on BBC as MORTALITY DATA
Surely a career ending issue for Burnham here
Lynton Crosby is not so weak though. And the LibDems can fight dirty with the best of them. The attacks on Labour's record WILL increase and they’ll get better and more painful for Labour to deal with.
Dave may have too many chinless SPADs, but some of his ministers seem to be developing a taste for beating up their shadows (most notably Gove, Osborne and Hunt). And it is producing results.
Actually Mike I think this would make for an interesting thread: Why haven’t the coalition attacked Labour and its record for 3 years? It’s a complete mystery to me. An open goal left unmolested.
Dickson's return to this site is in danger of being a fail. IIRC - prior to his first ban - he used to be funny and insightful: Currently he is not either.*
Please Stuart, do us a favour: Post summinck positive.** I have to say that - like antifrank and neil - I am concerned about your problem with JackW (and I have had a few tats with the Baronet). The strength of this site is it's depth of knowledge (and comsumption of alcohol)! ***
* I am not a Cheshire farmer. I like Cheshire cheese but....
** I find [self-] rejecting most posts before clicking the 'Post Comments' button helps my sanity. [Not sure of the effect on the rest of the m0ngs readers....]
** Well mine anyhoos...
A very poor interview by AB on Radio4. Blaming his civil servants sounded feeble. I think Jack's got him about right. He reminds me of Estelle Morris. Nice and with her heart in the right place but a bit too fragile for government
Why did it take you 24 hours and umpteen diversionary posts before replying to a straightforward request?
However I'd have to say that both Cameron and Clegg have both dropped the ball over shocking appointments - namely two gentleman whose names are toxic on PB and may not be mentioned for fear of fire and brimstone !!
Ouch ... that was a wee bit warm !!
If we have a fortnight of the NHS is a mess it will be a political bun fight as to who gets the blame. Labour for it's inability to address serious problems on its watch or HMG since the problems can get blamed on the govt.
In either case the NHS will probably go down a notch in the public's eye.
The problem is that pollster could just as easily be Survation as ICM. We simply won't know until the opinion polls are properly tested against the actual general election.
I think @Roger is right here - he's the wrong man for a job at DoH - AJ was another, when I was there he was house-trained within weeks and kept on a crowd-pleasing treadmill by his Office.
I actually think this is a mistake, and misunderstands how voters react. It makes it look as though you accept the other side's attacks on you. Of course you need to be measured and reasonable in your own attacks, but also you need to keep them simple and pithy. and keep repeating the same tedious lines, if you are to get through to the average voter who's not deconstructing every line. Labour are past masters at it - in fact, it's the only thing they are masters of.
Osborne's taxes won't rise and the idiotic statement on Indyref are just from this week.
Couldn't we just get Osborne to defect to Labour and give the blues a chance ? The reverse spin on PB would be worth the ticket, alone :-)
"Dickson's return to this site is in danger of being a fail. IIRC - prior to his first ban - he used to be funny and insightful: Currently he is not either.*
From the most self opinionated moron this site has ever seen this is way beyond parody. That Mike still lets you post on here is one of the site's great mysteries. You've never written a single interesting post which I think is unique
tumbleweed,,,,,,>>>
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Andy Burnham accuses Tories of "talking down the NHS" over claims he ignored warnings of hospital failures.
May 106 June 70 July 44
As I have previously posted , the adjustments Yougov and Populus make for Party ID do have an impact on the final UKIP VI figure compared to the other online pollsters
The ICM telephone poll figures ARE different to the other pollsters but the difference is only marginally affected by their methodology , the major difference is that the people responding are giving different responses ..
"Stop talking down my operation!"
"But... you killed the patient."
"Your negative attitude is bad for morale."
So, if Labour are saying that the NHS is not safe in the Conservatives' hands and the Conservatives are saying that the number of avoidable deaths is in some way Andy Burnham's fault, the public will believe that the Conservatives are spoiling to privatise the NHS and that Andy Burnham is incompetent. That's bad news for Andy Burnham, but not particularly bad news for the Labour party.
In other words, instead of just gunning for Andy Burnham, tempting though it no doubt is for the Conservatives, they should be attacking Labour directly.
If, on the other hand, you look at the rival messages on the economy, the Conservatives come out rather better off.
As for taxes, I think he's right. The country's problem is not insufficient taxation but deep-rooted excessive and wasteful spending. Osborne has already done the tax rises - which are easier and quicker to implement - and the focus over the next parliament will be on the long hard slog of efficiency improvements in public services, and taming the welfare monster.
We all know why.