Posts by Mr Mark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The People's Poet is dead!, in reply to HORansome,
"Mr Jolly Lives Next Door"
"We're going out with Nicholas BLOODY Parsons !!!"
"Never ever bloody anything ever !!!"
Nicholas (totally mystified) "And that was your winning slogan ?"
"That's right, Nicky, I've lived my life by that rule"
-
Tis The Beautiful Game for me. Can't wait.
Dear old England - every 4 years it turns out "We was robbed !"
No, England, not so much robbed as rubbish. They last won the Cup around the time I had my 2nd Birthday. I'm now just a few weeks from hitting the Big Five Zero. -
Hard News: The People's Poet is dead!, in reply to Rob Hosking,
At 3:16 - 3:17 Vicar (Terry Jones) says "Ahhhh, fucken hell !!!"
And then Rik replies "Fuck, it's a bit early for that, isn't it ???"When that episode was first broadcast here in 85, the censors (inadvertently ?) left the fucks in and I'm pretty sure that was the first time I'd ever heard fuck broadcast on New Zealand television.
-
Well, that didn't work, did it ?
Let's try Filthy, Rich and Catflap again. And if doesn't work this time, you can call me a complete and utter bastard. ...
-
Sad news.
The Young Ones first broadcast here in 1985, if I remember rightly. In fact, I think the first most New Zealanders saw of it was when the second series of The Young Ones won a Bafta in 84 or 85 (and they showed the scene of Vyvian kicking his head along the railway tracks on the way to University Challenge). Immediately after, TVNZ bought and broadcast both series.
But I’d discovered it on my first trip to the UK in 83 (during which, they repeated the first series from the previous year). And so felt very privileged. We even named our Indoor Soccer team after them, the following year (1986).
But possibly even better – the under-rated Filthy, Rich and Catflap
and, probably my fav – Bottom here….
-
Hard News: Meanwhile back at the polls, in reply to Andrew Robertson,
Cheers, Andrew. Appreciate you going to the trouble to clarify things.
-
Hard News: Meanwhile back at the polls, in reply to Andrew Robertson,
No, I certainly don't see Undecideds as a bad thing either.
I'm really more interested in what methodology Roy Morgan use to end up with such an unusually low proportion.
As far as likely non-voters go ( separate , of course, from undecideds, though partially overlapping), it would be nice if polling companies made their party support views known (albeit separately).
I've argued here...http://sub-z-p.blogspot.co.nz/ that it's pretty clear from the Mood for Change of Government section of the Fairfax Media-Ipsos Polls that the Country is relatively evenly divided politically, but that a fairly hefty % of people who prefer a Labour-led Government are excluded from the party support figures either because their undecided or fairly or very unlikely to vote. _-Fairfax__ polls consistently show that a disproportionate number of the excluded do indeed want a change of government.
I'd be interested to know if the same is true of those excluded from the Colmar Brunton because they said they were more likely than not to stay at home this election.
-
"There's nothing in particular wrong with the company's methodology"
The thing that really intrigues me about Roy Morgan is their unusually small proportion of Undecideds - consistently far lower relative to the other 4 public polls.
I'm wondering if they follow Andrew's One News Clomar Brunton modus operandi in prompting those who are initially undecided on the Party Vote question (by asking a follow-up question along the lines of "Is there a Party you're more likely to vote for ?"). But the thing is, even then, Colmar Brunton still consistently record a far higher Undecided - and therefore excluded - sub-set than Roy Morgan.
Perhaps, unlike Colmar Brunton , they (Roy Morgan) don't ask about intention-to-vote, and therefore don't exclude those unlikely to vote ?
-
There's nowhere else in the country this could happen
Newtown, south Wellington ?
-
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Russell Brown But even after a string of bad polls for the Opposition, the actual numbers will end up closer than that
Deep Red Another thing to consider is that most of the major pollsters predicted an outright Nats majority, and all of those predictions proved off the mark
I’ll outline my own analysis (based on more detailed statistics over a broader time-span) below. But first, I’ll point to Gavin White…. http://sayit.co.nz/blog/what-political-polls-tell-us , Rob Salmond… http://polity.co.nz/content/x-more-thoughts-poll-bias and Danyl…http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/tracking-poll-update/ for arguments (based on the final 2 weeks of polls during previous Election campaigns) that Polling companies seem to consistently overstate National support.
What I’ve done is to calculate National’s monthly poll average for the 08 and 11 Election years and then compare it (in parentheses) with National’s actual Party-Vote Election result later that year: (so, for example, the Nats averaged 52% in the opinion polls of March 2011 and that was 5 percentage points higher than the proportion they in fact received at the 2011 election):
National 2011
March 52% (+5), April 54% (+7), May 52% (+5), June 53% (+6), July 53% (+6), August 54% (+7), September 55% (+8), October 54% (+7), Early November 52% (+5), Late November 51% (+4), 2011 Election: 47%
National 2008
March 49% (+4), April 51% (+6), May 52% (+7), June 54% (+9), July 51% (+6), August 49% (+4), September 49% (+4), Early/Mid October 48% (+3), Late October/Early November 46% (+1), 2008 Election: 45%
So, all things being equal, I suspect you can probably subtract 4-7 points off National’s current polling (averaging roughly 49% at the moment). But, it’s important not to assume that this can simply be added on to the Left Bloc vote. Some of it goes to National’s minor support parties on the Right (which tend to receive a slight boost after Key’s teacup luncheons – in which he often accompanies Peter Dunne on the hammond organ).