lichtgilphead
-
Posts
4,292 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by lichtgilphead
-
-
I did state this vote only, but stout defence of "yer man" for reasons I have no clue of
PS but a good read anyway
So, how about some proof that he was the first to do it during "this vote only"?
I'm starting to think you just make "facts" up and post them without thinking. Congratulations on buying into the whole "Better Together" ethos.
0 -
Trollolololololololol
I think Half_Baked meant to say "No won by a landslide in 1979 if you count the dead and non-voters as "No" votes"
Surely even he doesn't believe that they got a majority of the actual votes cast
0 -
But I will say both sides have been a bit naughty with the polls, it was Salmond on the now infamous Marr show when he claimed a recent poll had the Yes vote at 45%, but he had discounted the Dks, that was the 1st time he had used this, and since then both sides have done this
He was the 1st Politician of this campaign to do it, but not the last I surmise
you are right it was during the 3 year pre-campaign, campaign
Any chance of some proof of your views, ecto?
If I've got you right, you're suggesting that Salmond was the first ever politician to discount DK's from a poll in advance of a Scottish referendum.
Here's a link to Ipso-Mori figures from 1979
and a copy of the final table on the page, which shows shows voting intentions in the run-up to the poll, and the final result.
Base: All giving a referendum voting intention (i.e. repercentaged to exclude "don't knows")
12-14 February 1979 Yes 64% No 36%
20-22 February 1979 Yes 60% No 40%
27-28 February 1979 Yes 50% No 50%
Referendum result 1 March 1979 Yes 51.6% No 48.4%
Can you either specifically show that these results were issued by Salmond, or provide proof that figures that excluded "Don't Know" at were used by him at an earlier date.
Alternatively, you could confirm that you were making stuff up again?
edit to sort table formatting problems & me typing "No" where I meant to say "Don't Know" at one point
0 -
well you have my apologies
Have a greenie.
0 -
they did not claim that all, whose now using it for their own agenda
http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/new-poll-delivers-fresh-blow-to-salmond
Link to Better Together's own page? Check
Better Together claim that it's a YouGov survey? Check
Mention that it's for Progressive Partnership? Check
Mention of release of poll result being 11 May 2014? Check
You're talking sh*te again, Ecto. Better Together quite clearly claim everything I've accused them of:
Incidentally, you'll also find a full report on this scam here: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/according-to-better-togethers-own-logic.html
and here: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/huge-surge-in-support-for-independence.html
I'm particularly impressed with the predictive skills Scot Goes Pop displays in his third last paragraph of the earlier report
Meanwhile, our dear friends over in the official anti-independence campaign continue with their relentless quest to shed any last vestiges of self-respect. When the PSO poll was published a few hours ago, they posted a graphic on Twitter comparing it to the YouGov poll from ten days ago, rather than to the last poll conducted by PSO. By sheer coincidence, this piece of jiggery-pokery gives the grossly misleading impression that there has in fact been a big swing to the No campaign, rather than the other way around. But don't worry - you can rest assured that they'll maintain consistency at all times...
0 -
Latest YouGov poll:
No 53% (+2)
Yes 36% (-1)
DK 9%
Would not vote 2%
Changes are from last YouGov poll in April.
Excluding DK's and WNV's, that's 60-40 for no. More good news
Wait a minute here.
Remember the Progressive Partnership poll a few weeks ago? The No side claimed that that poll was carried out by YouGov.
If that was considered to be a Yougov poll when it suited Better Together's agenda at the time, why is it being ignored now?
Would it be because they would have to report:
Yes 36% (+4)
No 53% (+1)
That's a 4% increase for Yes in just over a month, according to the logic that BT applied in May. Why doesn't the same logic apply in June?
0 -
Cool.
Seriously though, are people actually canvassing areas asking what you are voting (both sides) and taking note, or was this a sole lunatic? I ask as I have never come across this before.
TBH I have no idea. I have never been canvassed nor have I ever been asked to patricipate in a poll relating to the referendum.
Canvassing is common enough. Nowadays, it's all recorded digitally, but even 20 years ago, the two main parties in Arbroath knew where their voters (and opponents!) lived.
Accordingly, I was never canvassed by the SNP (who knew I was a certain SNP voter) or the Tories (who also knew I was an SNP supporter)
Occasionally, the Lib Dems would send someone out and Labour had some canvassers out in '97. I used to tell them that I didn't vote for parties that came knocking on my door
0 -
Yeah, but who the f*ck are they?
Fill your boots
They provide a pretty well-respected service
0 -
They used YouGov to conduct the poll for them, giving them the criteria they wanted them to use. The infamous SNP leading questions invalidated the reputatability of that poll every bit as much as Progressive Scottish Opinion asking YouGov to use different methodology does.
Libby
I would be more inclined to agree with your contention that asking 3 leading questions in advance of asking the referendum question was dodgy if this exchange hadn't happened last year
Hold on a minute. Is this how the question was asked? Please tell me it wasn't?
If there was a referendum tomorrow on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Scotland be an independent country?
That's what the referendum is about. They have given a preamble to set the context to get a snapshot of current opinion, then asked for a response to the actual question. They even say "and if this was the question" in the preamble. It is not leading in any way whatsoever.
It wasn't part of the question YouGov asked.
It was part of the preamble. They asked the referendum question. Verbatim.
It isn't a leading question. The preamble may or may not be misleading. The question is verbatim the one approved by the Electoral Commission and not leading.
Can you explain why you consider the referendum question not to be leading when "No" use a preamble, whilst maintaining that it is misleading when "Yes" ask the same referendum question as question number 4?
0 -
About as believable as Confi sleeping with Jennifer Aniston
I know. Yes can do far better.
http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/198881-independence-how-would-you-vote/
0 -
I referred to your (still uncorrected) post from 17.03 today. In which you unambiguously stated "It was a YouGov poll"
Now, are you actually planning on replying to the substantive points in my post, or do you just want to argue over who said what & when?
0 -
It was a YouGov poll
No it wasn't. It was conducted by Progressive Scottish Opinion.
They may have used the online YouGov panel, but PSO choose the weightings that they apply to the poll results. As such, it is totally meaningless to compare the result with the YouGov/Channel 4 poll from last week
In addition, they didn't ask the actual referendum question. They replaced the word "be" with "become", thus subtly emphasising the status quo
Finally, PSO don't adhere to British Polling Council rules. I seem to recollect that they have previously been accused of not publishing full polling data.
However, I'm sure that these minor problems won't stop you believing that "No" has an impregnable lead. Enjoy your dream.
0 -
The Dear Leader is an inside joke about SNP restrictions on personal freedom. The North Korean president is known as the Dear Leader and that's the most Authoritarian country in the world, so when the SNP do things like alcohol minimum pricing and the abolishing of the corroboration rule, the Dear Leader jibe is used.
So, as:
1) Corroboration isn't required & hasn't been required in a neighbouring jurisdiction for a long, long time
and
2) The same neighbouring legal jurisdiction are also considering bringing in minimum pricing in the near future,
Should their leaders be known as "Super-Authoritarian Dearer Leaders" in future?
0 -
Shows what, exactly?
Isn't it obvious?
Sorry, but H_B is a bigger troll than you.
0 -
Difference being that I have had my account for years but barely used it at all until the last six months.
I have nearly 10000 posts on quite a few sites.
Aye, but you're a self-proclaimed troll and still don't average anywhere near HB's daily average post count.
Just shows.
0 -
...you did indeed lie.
Talking of lies, can you please examine the Daily Mail's report pictured above:
1) How can support for the Union be described as having "surged" when the poll shows the lowest lead for No ever found by YouGov?
2) How can support for the Union be described as having "surged" when the poll shows the lowest support for No ever polled by YouGov when they have asked the referendum question?
3) How can support for the Union be described as having "surged" when the poll shows the highest equal support for Yes ever polled by YouGov when they have asked the referendum question?
4) Why does the Daily Mail state that the poll shows that Salmond has been "hit by Putin row" when practically all of the polling pre-dates the Putin story?
Are the Daily Mail being completely truthful?
0 -
50000 posts in a decade is only about 14 posts per day.
In comparison, you've been a member for around 1000 days, You've made under 1800 posts.
Do the sums.
0 -
You immediately tried to rubbish the pollster rather than actually discuss the content of the poll.
That's an interesting reimagination of what I said.
You claim that I didn't discuss the poll...
No i didn't. That s a lie.
????What extremes of pedantry are coming now???
0 -
You immediately tried to rubbish the pollster rather than actually discuss the content of the poll.
You engage in dreadful double standards like Colkitto before you.
I have never seen you open a post on a Panel base poll by pointing out they are the Yes campaigns pet pollster so that should be a clue in any positive result for Yes.
Why not ?
That's an interesting reimagination of what I said.
You claim that I didn't discuss the poll. In reality, I actually looked behind the headline figure and invited the No side to compare the result with the previous YouGov poll.
I suggested that this would show that YouGov were finding a narrowing in the current gap between No and Yes, and that this narrowing was similar to results observed by other pollsters.
I have since asked you to address this point, but you seem unwilling to do so.
With regard to your point about Panelbase, I have previously stated on numerous occasions that they are the most Yes friendly pollsters.
I see no need to repeat that fact every time I mention them. In the same way, I don't preface every post I make to you with a reference to your trolling & deflection.
So, are you going to continue to accuse me of double standards, or would you actually like to address the continuing narrowing of the current No lead?
0 -
I take it you dismiss all Panelbase polls for the same reason in reverse. Just to be consistent.... given they are Wings and the SNP s pet pollsters when you need to buy a result?
Stop putting words into my mouth. I didn't dismiss anything - I merely pointed out that YouGov have traditionally been the most no-friendly pollster. By the same token, Panelbase are the most Yes-friendly pollster.
As such, comparing the results found by the two companies (as C4 did) is not particularly instructive.
I then showed that even YouGov appear to be finding a narrowing in the gap between No and Yes. This is the same narrowing that all pollsters are finding.
Why not address that point rather than throwing around accusations about buying results?
0 -
Anyone had a cheeky wee look at the channel 4 news/ yougov poll tonight? Yes 42% No 58%
As you correctly point out, the poll was conducted by YouGov - the preferred pollsters of Better Together. That should be a clue.
Have you compared it with their previous polls? I think you'll find out that this latest poll produces the record low lead they have ever recorded for "No"
0 -
1) No danger, we were much worse, in the 1st part of that season under John McGlashan,
2) was Irvine not his 1st game,
3) It was Campbell by a mile
1) Campbell took over from John Brogan in Dec '96. We were much worse in the first part of that season too
2) Irvine was Weir's 3rd game in charge and his first defeat. We didn't win again until the middle of February.
3) Campbell had a worse league record than Weir (they both lost a similar number of games, but Campbell had more draws & fewer wins), but in the Cup, at least Campbell beat Spartans (over 2 matches) and drew at home with Morton before losing the replay at Cappielow.
However, I would suggest that even though we were terrible under both, we played slightly more attractive football under Campbell than we did under Weir. There haven't been that many games over the years where I've been so bored that I just wanted the game to end, but Weir produced a good few of them in his short time in charge.
Edited to add: If you base it purely on W/D/L records, wouldn't Jocky Scott be the worst?
0 -
Much as I detest Tommy Campbell, I honestly think we were worse under Jim Weir.
The defeat at Irvine Meadow sums him up for me. I can't remember one redeeming feature from that game.
0 -
Looking for a bit of help from someone in the know about car finance. Basically I took a car out on finance 2 years ago and the plan was over 5 years. I now want a better car as I have a better job and can afford one, plus I have a bit of a dream car and now will be the only time I have the chance to get one with no mortgage/babies yet.
Anyhoo, my question is this, someone at my work told me that once you have paid half the balance of your finance you can give the car back to the garage and cancel the contract. I have no idea if this is correct or not and was basically wondering if this is a possibility or whether I'm stuck with a car I dont really want anymore for 5 years. Cheers.
There are different types of finance available. What does it say at the top of the credit agreement?
If it specifically says “Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974” or “Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974”, then you can terminate the agreement if you have paid half the total amount payable (including the deposit & any final payment) Look at section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act for details
However, if it says anything else, (most commonly "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"), then you can't terminate - you would need to ask for an early settlement figure.
0
Latest Polls and Latest Odds
in The Politics Forum
Posted
Ecto - it's not about defending Salmond. It's more about exposing the lies promoted by the No side, including your ridiculous assertion that Salmond was the first to exclude "Don't Knows" when reporting poll results.
Now you've put a date on your claim, all I need to do to prove that you are wrong is to find one earlier occurrence where someone else uses figures that exclude don't know.
A two minute google search brings up this article, by John Curtice, published on Friday 14th March 2014, in which he states "In a dozen polls conducted between September and November, the Yes vote was put on average at 38 per cent (excluding the 'don't knows'). In 13 polls fielded since the end of November through to the middle of February, however, that average has increased to 41 per cent."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/how-the-snp-could-win-the-independence-referendum
Now, I'm not suggesting that Curtice was the first to do this, but it conclusively demonstrates that people were using figures with "Don't know" excluded before Salmonds appearance on the Andrew Marr show.
So, as we all expected, my allegation that you were talking sh*te has been proved to be correct. Congratulations (again) on buying into the whole "Better Together" ethos.