Which party has the most popular policies?

CLAPTON

Most people don't really vote for policies as such.
Many because most policies are ill defined, uncosted and don't, in practice, come to pass.

So many therefore vote based on their knowledge of the previous performance of the parties.

Of course with new parties there can be a honeymoon period where hope over experience reigns.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

No-one writes it, it's a poll.....

It's a poll based on a self-selected sample with a demonstrated Labour bias.

wellused wrote: »

Labour win on the environment and the greens win on crime who writes this stuff?

Some chap with a BSc in International Business with French from the University of Plymouth, and an MSc in Digital Publishing with the City University, who works as a civil servant at the Home Office.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Labour the economy. Are you serious. :eek:

Guess you are. Going to be a total Balls up!

Of course not. It's pretty clear from the TNS poll, that the online figures quoted overestimate the 'support' for Labour policies by 100%.:)

As I pointed out before, the party whose policies come out best in this exercise is UKIP.

wymondham

I've been thinking about policies of the different parties. One thing I keep coming back to is that whoever gets in, if they break things we can recover from mismanaged health/schools/economy etc, but we cannot recover from mismanaged immigration - once the damage is done its done....... just a thought!

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

Regarding the economy, why not learn something from the independent experts rather than Tory press drivel.

Then enlighten us as to Labours plans. Is an £8 minimum wage, an end to zero hours contracts, taxing people to the hilt because they happen to live in £2 million plus houses, working out what non doms should pay in tax going to enable the UK to compete with the rest of the world. HSBC may move out of the UK if further levies are introduced on banks. As it would mean that their entire UK profit would go to fund this.

All very catchy soundbites to appeal to the electorate. However the consequences could be so very damaging.

Generali

It always pays to look at the methodology behind a survey.

In this case, the results are completely unmoderated. In a proper survey, an effort is made to ensure that respondents' as a group represent the population at large being surveyed.

Imagine, for example, you wanted to know how many badgers there are in the UK so you took a 1 km sq area of the country, added up the badgers that lived there and multiplied by 243,000. Sounds reasonable.

Trouble is, if you survey the area around a large sett or around Lords Cricket Ground you will end up with a very different result! To get around this you survey a series of areas that together are representative of the UK as a whole.

You do a similar thing when doing a political survey. You ask people their age, sex, education levels, perhaps how they've voted in the past, maybe their race if that might be applicable, income and so on and then moderate the inputs into your survey so that your sample represents the country as a whole.

Now I just took the survey and note two things:

1. The website made absolutely no attempt to find out who I am and so whether their sample is representative of the UK as a whole
2. When I put in a mate's postcode in an area where Labour don't stand at local elections and rarely get 10% at General Elections, the website told me that the survey predicted the Tories would come fifth. In Guildford.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/G7xxGxZHP0MMfyuOu#/constituency-results

I think the website could do with a little work. It is what we economists call, "meaningless".

Masomnia

Which party (A, B or C) do you agree most with:

Economy:
A: We will cut the gap between rich and poor.
B: We will make everyone poorer.
C: We will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Crime:
A: We will increase the number of police per head of the population.
B: The above will stay the same.
C: We will cut it as we need to cut spending.

Health:
A: We will increase the number of nurses per head of the population.
B: It will stay the same.
C: We'll have to cut it as we need to save money.

Education:
A: Free tuition for all, paid for by increasing the share of taxes paid by the rich.
B: About the same.
C: Increased fees.

The majority would vote for party A based on those polices? Right?

Until it turns out that party A is pledging to achieve the above by executing the poorest 10% of people in society.

You can't look at policies in isolation. That's why that 'study' you've posted is so flawed.

That and green party members sharing it on social media, which is what seems to be happening on my Facebook.

cepheus

So Thrugelmir, why don't you enlighten us on how people can be motivated working in a low wage, zero hour economy, why people should be taxed less on unearned income and asset gains than earned income, and why HSBC won't move out of the UK if we exit the EU, and why should we tolerate filthy blackmail from unscrupulous companies anyway?

cepheus

Generali wrote: »

It always pays to look at the methodology behind a survey.

In this case, the results are completely unmoderated. In a proper survey, an effort is made to ensure that respondents' as a group represent the population at large being surveyed.

Imagine, for example, you wanted to know how many badgers there are in the UK so you took a 1 km sq area of the country, added up the badgers that lived there and multiplied by 243,000. Sounds reasonable.

Trouble is, if you survey the area around a large sett or around Lords Cricket Ground you will end up with a very different result! To get around this you survey a series of areas that together are representative of the UK as a whole.

You do a similar thing when doing a political survey. You ask people their age, sex, education levels, perhaps how they've voted in the past, maybe their race if that might be applicable, income and so on and then moderate the inputs into your survey so that your sample represents the country as a whole.

Now I just took the survey and note two things:

1. The website made absolutely no attempt to find out who I am and so whether their sample is representative of the UK as a whole
2. When I put in a mate's postcode in an area where Labour don't stand at local elections and rarely get 10% at General Elections, the website told me that the survey predicted the Tories would come fifth. In Guildford.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/G7xxGxZHP0MMfyuOu#/constituency-results

I think the website could do with a little work. It is what we economists call, "meaningless".

Yes your right in the sense it isn't a controlled survey, however this was, so perhaps it isn't biased after all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/the-public-are-more-left-wing-than-ed-miliband-on-these-11-p#.imvzD0VD

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

So Thrugelmir, why don't you enlighten us on how people can be motivated working in a low wage, zero hour economy, why people should be taxed less on unearned income and asset gains than earned income, and why HSBC won't move out of the UK if we exit the EU, and why should we tolerate filthy blackmail from unscrupulous companies anyway?

No answers. That's a typical response.

Motivation. Under Brown a whole welfare benefit system was created where there is either no incentive to work. Or the loss of benefits results in a cut off where's no point in working additional hours.

Low Wage. Since 1990 companies have been exporting manual and low skilled jobs abroad. The labour market is now global. That's a fact of life. The Western world is losing it's dominance. Telling companies what to pay isn't going to create jobs.

No Doms. Taxing people on global assets. How is this system going to be administered? What about tax that is already paid. What if other countries increase taxes on the same individuals or their companies. Not as if their assets purely consist of cash in the bank. People like that can easily up sticks and move.

HSBC is more concerned about bank levies. As already pays UK tax on global income. With labours proposal this would amount to some $1.6 billion. Which more or less wipes out UK profit after tax. Loss to the UK would therefore be considerable and most likely see HSBC float off what was the Midand Bank. Financial Services make a sizable contribution to the UK. Milking a cow until it's dry is a short sighted policy. There's no blackmail it's a fact of life. Just as US companies channel profit through Eire to avoid high US taxes.

Returning to low wages. Companies have to make profits to pay wages. Forcing up costs won't create any more jobs. As sectors such as tourism, care services, cleaning, restaurants etc simply could not absorb the additional burden. Higher wages are earnt from acquiring skills and therefore producing something of value.

The UK is getting dumber and less skilled. As the service sector now accounts for 70% of the economy. That's the real concern. Buying people off with borrowed money that their children are going to have to fund. Isn't the solution to a more prosperous UK.

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

Yes your right in the sense it isn't a controlled survey, however this was, so perhaps it isn't biased after all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/the-public-are-more-left-wing-than-ed-miliband-on-these-11-p#.imvzD0VD

Well we'll see whether the Tories come 1st or 5th in Guildford soon enough.

Whilst we're on the subject of opinion polls taken out of context.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/266843/65-say-Bring-back-hanging

65% say: Bring back hanging

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/ELECTIONS-2015-Poll-reveals-support-tougher/story-26360954-detail/story.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052749/Our-Shameless-society-How-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html

Even more think there are some groups of people claiming benefits who should have those benefits cut. They were particularly suspicious of people on sickness benefits: 84% wanted stricter tests to make sure they were really incapable of working. They were pretty hawkish on housing benefits too: 57% said people who get higher benefits because they live in expensive areas should be forced to move into cheaper accommodation.

The polls you post to cepheus all basically say the same thing. People want more and to have someone else pay for it.