[joeysteele]

I am also very hesitant now to put much faith in opinion polls especially after the General election.
Polls can be wrong or right depending on how they are done, phone polls, online polls or face to face polls.

However it is not polls that will or should decide this, it is peoples hard views ad fears on the issue.
If we adopted polling as a guide to how MPs should vote, we would now have the death penalty back in the UK for sure.

On war, as with Iraq, public opinion can very rapidly change depending on how bad or good things go.
So I put very little faith on snap polling.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

A clear majority of British people support RAF air strikes on Syria – and across all of Europe people say their country should being doing more to combat ISIS within Iraq and Syria

New research for the YouGov-Cambridge symposium on Syria and the EU confirms strong and continued public support for RAF air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

Public support, now at 59% to 20% in opposition, has been steady throughout 2015, even in the wake of the Paris attacks – suggesting the public have settled on a position, with support unlikely to deteriorate in the near future.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/25...strikes-syria/

Look at the sample size, 1659
of those only 617 were under 40, 751 polled were from the south and 763 voted conservative or UKIP at the last election.
No SDP voters were polled.

[Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th November 2015]

Hoodwinking the nation? not bad for a days work.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...24_Syria_w.pdf

[MTVN]

If 763 of a 1659 sample voted Tory or Ukip then that is representative of the electorate..

[MTVN]

Plus those results show that 52% of those who voted Labour back strikes against 26% opposing

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Look at the sample size, 1659
of those only 617 were under 40, 751 polled were from the south and 763 voted conservative or UKIP at the last election.

[Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th November 2015]

Hoodwinking the nation? not bad for a days work.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...24_Syria_w.pdf

As I said,I now put little faith in polling and again as to war, public opinion is extremely volatile anyway and you could do a poll after the vote which could then say we are wrong to go back.
I would also treat very sceptically the accuracy of UK opinion generally in a poll that has very nearly half of its respondents from the affluent South anyway.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

If 763 of a 1659 sample voted Tory or Ukip then that is representative of the electorate..

I highly doubt that, what of the SNP, Plaid or Green voters where were they represented?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Plus those results show that 52% of those who voted Labour back strikes against 26% opposing

And 22% undecided as nobody can predict it is truly in the countrys best interest as the PM cannot make a viable case for it.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I highly doubt that, what of the SNP, Plaid or Green voters where were they represented?

763 of 1659 is 46%. In the 2015 election the Conservatives had 36.9% of the vote and Ukip had 12.6% equalling a combined vote share of 49.5%.

Therefore it is representative of the electorate and if you really want to be picky than Tory and Ukip voters are very slightly under-represented

And remove the Con/Lib/Lab/Ukip voters from that sample and there are 414 surveyed unaccounted for, that will include supporters of the other parties that you mention

[MTVN]

Why is there always some conspiracy against Labour lol. Yougov are an independent polling company with incredibly rigorous standards when it comes to sample sizes and representation, they are hardly going to engineer massively skewed results when it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

763 of 1659 is 46%. In the 2015 election the Conservatives had 36.9% of the vote and Ukip had 12.6% equalling a combined vote share of 49.5%.

Therefore it is representative of the electorate and if you really want to be picky than Tory and Ukip voters are very slightly under-represented

And remove the Con/Lib/Lab/Ukip voters from that sample and there are 414 surveyed unaccounted for, that will include supporters of the other parties that you mention

The samples are weighted.

I make it 315 unaccounted for.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Why is there always some conspiracy against Labour lol. Yougov are an independent polling company with incredibly rigorous standards when it comes to sample sizes and representation, they are hardly going to engineer massively skewed results when it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

Who mentioned Labour?
I'm saying I don't think the stratified sample size is large enough to be representative lol.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think you're in a position to be commenting on what "moderate people" do or don't understand, Kirk. You're not trying to imply that you are one, are you? I mean, I know I'm not either, but I fully accept that.

Uh??? This comment is scraping the bottom of the 'Ludicrous' barrel T.S to be honest.

Following your non-logic, no white man should have an opinion on black politics in South Africa, and no Christian should hold views on the ideologies of Islamic extremists, and neither you nor LT and any other Atheists should ever comment on Religious threads again.

What is more inane, is the fact that the post I was admiring and commenting on, was a direct response to a statement in a post by Kizzy which I deemed as ridiculous as BitOnTheSlide did. Here it is:

Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

But I do not witness you telling Kizzy that she is NOT "in a position to be commenting on what 'moderate people' do or don't understand"

OH !!!! Wait, I UNDERSTAND now - Kizzy IS A MODERATE in your esteemed opinion so SHE can have an opinion. Oh, that's alright then.

Before I run off to find myself a wet kipper with which to whack my bare backside with while crying "Kirk's a naughty boy", I will reproduce the actual post which I applauded, and this, taken into context with Kizzy's statement above may illustrate why I not only applauded BitOnTheSlide's response, but do not myself have to be a 'moderate' to qualify to do so:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide View Post
"
"So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it."

Great response by BitOnTheSlide isn't it?

[user104658]

She isn't entirely wrong though kirk, there IS an idea creeping in that anyone who doesn't agree with the government-default stance on terrorism and war-waging has a strange, out there, or bizarre ideology.

Your clapping response indicated that you felt bots was correct and that you know it to be correct because you yourself are able to confirm as much because you are one of those moderate people who wants to "stop their families from being murdered" (which is, ironically, hyperbole, extreme, scaremongering, and not at all moderate).

But you are not moderate, kirk, I've never really seen you post anything that would suggest such... So you're not one of those people or families.

If the clapping / agreement response wasn't supposed to suggest that, then it really needed more than the clapping emote response. Then again, in my own opinion, ANY post needs more than that inane response, but I've covered that in the past.

[Kizzy]

I do not witness you telling Kizzy that she is NOT "in a position to be commenting on what 'moderate people' do or don't understand"

Oh don't worry, I get this.... A lot.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

She isn't entirely wrong though kirk, there IS an idea creeping in that anyone who doesn't agree with the government-default stance on terrorism and war-waging has a strange, out there, or bizarre ideology.

Your clapping response indicated that you felt bots was correct and that you know it to be correct because you yourself are able to confirm as much because you are one of those moderate people who wants to "stop their families from being murdered" (which is, ironically, hyperbole, extreme, scaremongering, and not at all moderate).

But you are not moderate, kirk, I've never really seen you post anything that would suggest such... So you're not one of those people or families.

If the clapping / agreement response wasn't supposed to suggest that, then it really needed more than the clapping emote response. Then again, in my own opinion, ANY post needs more than that inane response, but I've covered that in the past.

And thankyou for that, that is exactly what I meant, too often lately we have seen this word 'moderate' bandied around in the context that they are in alignment with the current conservative ethos be it to do with ISIS, replacing trident or junior doctors.
Anyone opposed is a militant, loony,bleeding heart, hand wringing red!

[Northern Monkey]

That's gonna happen as compared with Corbyn UKIP are moderate....

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And thankyou for that, that is exactly what I meant, too often lately we have seen this word 'moderate' bandied around in the context that they are in alignment with the current conservative ethos be it to do with ISIS, replacing trident or junior doctors.
Anyone opposed is a militant, loony,bleeding heart, hand wringing red!

People in the Labour party are moderate, people in the Labour party are extremist (like Corbyn) There are also both sets in the Conservative party. Like it or not, the majority of the UK public fit in to the moderate category. They will have views that align with Conservatives and they will have views that align with Labour... All moderate

It is a fact that well known moderates within both parties support taking action in Syria

[arista]

I hope by 7PM Ch4HD News
can tell us its a Free Vote or His Vote Alone.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People in the Labour party are moderate, people in the Labour party are extremist (like Corbyn) There are also both sets in the Conservative party. Like it or not, the majority of the UK public fit in to the moderate category. They will have views that align with Conservatives and they will have views that align with Labour... All moderate

It is a fact that well known moderates within both parties support taking action in Syria

Well yes that's stating the obvious, doesn't take away from my point that the govt view is 9 times out of 10 touted as the moderate line and anything else is militant lunacy.

[bots]

Labour MPs 'to get free vote on Syria'

Jeremy Corbyn is to grant Labour MPs a free vote on extending UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State into Syria, the BBC understands.
But the Labour leader is expected to want his party to take a position of opposition to military action.
Mr Corbyn has been meeting his shadow cabinet team, many of whom are likely to support air strikes.
It comes as David Cameron continues to try to build support for the extension of strikes from Iraq to Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024

[Kizzy]

It is a matter of conscience, however I say both parties should have a free vote or neither.

I think it's a mistake.

[Kizzy]

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn, issued Friday 27th November, has shown that 75 per cent of Labour party members who have responded oppose UK bombing in Syria.

107,875 responses were received of which 64,771 were confirmed as full individual Labour Party members. The remainder included affiliated supporters and registered supporters.

Random sampling, of full individual Labour Party members who responded to the email, has shown:

75 per cent are against UK bombing in Syria

13 per cent are for UK bombing in Syria

11 per cent are undecided on the issue.'

These stats seem at odds with the Labour voters in the yougov poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...b0cf03a46244a1

[arista]

A Free Vote
makes sense.

[Kizzy]

iain watsonVerified account
‏@iainjwatson
But told 'confusion' at shadow cabinet now over whether free vote can be accompanied by a statement saying party as a whole opposes bombing

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'A sample of this weekend’s consultation of Labour Party members, carried out in response to an email from Jeremy Corbyn, issued Friday 27th November, has shown that 75 per cent of Labour party members who have responded oppose UK bombing in Syria.

107,875 responses were received of which 64,771 were confirmed as full individual Labour Party members. The remainder included affiliated supporters and registered supporters.

Random sampling, of full individual Labour Party members who responded to the email, has shown:

75 per cent are against UK bombing in Syria

13 per cent are for UK bombing in Syria

11 per cent are undecided on the issue.'

These stats seem at odds with the Labour voters in the yougov poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...b0cf03a46244a1

Members being the operative word.The people who put Corbyn in power.The 'moderate' Labour voters however are in favour of airstrikes.