minininja wrote:Thommo wrote:minininja wrote:But again you've selected some reasons why the Greens shouldn't be included when the LibDems are, then you've selected some different reasons why the Greens shouldn't when Ukip are.
No I haven't.
Look, I'll spell it out in more detail if you like:-
Greens 1 MP; UKIP 2; LibDem 56.
- Greens barely behind UKIPGreens 0.96% vote share 2010; UKIP 3.1%; LibDem 23%.
- Greens barely behind UKIPGreens 3 MEPs; UKIP 24; LibDem 1.
- Greens ahead of LibDemsGreen 5% Opinion polls; UKIP 15%; LibDem 8%.
- Greens barely behind LibDemsGreen 170 councillors; UKIP 370; LibDem 2257.
- Greens not miles behind UKIPParty membership Green 29,000; UKIP 39,000; Libdem 44,000; SNP 92,000; Con 134,000; Lab 190,000
If including the Scottish Greens
- Green, UKIP, and Libdem are all in the same ballpark.
What point are you making? That a factor of
three is "barely behind" is just nonsense - especially when you count MEPs (which aren't relevant to a general election) as an unqualified "ahead" despite being by a smaller margin. In each case you compare to the worst performer, not the average or better of the others and just fudge
very large differences as "barely" different. This is just classic confirmation bias.
minininja wrote:Thommo wrote:minininja wrote:That's what the broadcasters did and now what Ofcom seem to have done. It's moving the goalposts. The decision of which parties to include has come first and justification second.
Not remotely true. What on Earth do you base this on? I certainly didn't do it and I see not one scrap of evidence Ofcom did either - the Greens are the fifth party, well behind the libdems and UKIP on any sensible measures.
And you've done it again - arbitrarily decided that according to an average of the measures you've used the fifth party is not a major one.
Clearly not. I don't say any of those parties were either major or minor, I looked up and presented exact facts and compared every one of those exact facts for every party under discussion. This is just a bizarre and pathetic attempt at a smear.
minininja wrote:There are many more parties than 5, and why 5th and not 3rd? There's no actual defined criteria. I don't even care which parties are included or not, the problem is the way it has been decided is wrong.
They are defined, although, yes, as I agreed before there is a certain degree of arbitrariness. That this arbitration goes against the greens who have got an insignificant share of the vote in the last few general elections and an insignificant number of members of parliament seems very reasonable.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binari ... arties.pdfAt paragraph 3.33 of the PPRB Statement we said the list of major parties would be reviewed in accordance with the following principles:
• we would consider whether it is appropriate to review the list on a periodic basis i.e. we would only review the list if there were cogent reasons for doing so;
• mindful of the need for continuity and certainty in this area so that both political parties and broadcasters can plan ahead for elections, we would commence any reviews in the autumn preceding the relevant election(s) happening in the following May/June;
• in any review of the list we might carry out, we would take into account factors such as the electoral performance of parties (including the numbers of elected candidates and overall percentage of vote received) over a range of elections over at least two electoral cycles (including elections prior to the PPRB Consultation) for the different types of elect ions, and levels of current support;
• if a party's performance over several elections of the same type was significant but not reflected in other types of election, we would consider drawing up a specific list of major parties for that specific type of election;
• whenever we decide to review the list, we would publicly consult on any proposed changes, including obtaining input from the Electoral Commission on any proposed changes; and
•as appropriate, we would publicly consult only in relation to the relevant election or particular elections, rather than all possible types of elections.
For the purposes of this Review, we have considered whether the available evidence supports changing the list of major parties, and if so on what basis. For this purpose, we collated a comprehensive set of relevant electoral data, as reproduced in in Annex 2. In summary, this data comprises:
a) evidence of past electoral support: relevant data for past electoral performance in past General Elections and English local (and mayoral) elections over a number of years. In addition, we set out relevant data for past electoral performance in other types of election which have taken place since the 2010 General Election, and which are not being contested in May 2015;
and
b) evidence of current support: evidence of current support in relation to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as demonstrated by opinion poll data. In summary, this evidence, as laid out in Annex 2, paragraph A2.8 onwards, comprises of the following:
•England: as in the 2014 Review, we have used the Great Britain-wide polls as a proxy for gauging levels of current support in England only. The figures we used are contained in: the BBC ‘Poll of Polls’ (of Great Britain-wide polls); and the monthly polling reports produced by the Polling Observatory project; and
• Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: we note that very few opinion polls relate individually to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, we present the limited information that is available in Annex 2. The opinion poll data will be updated in advance of our decision on this matter.
For the purposes of this consultation, Ofcom has had regard to the totality of the evidence presented in Annex 2. A summary of the available evidence in each of the nations of the UK is set out below. England:
• in relation to the three existing major parties (the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats), they have each demonstrated: significant past electoral support in General Elections in England, all having achieved 22.9% of the vote and above in both 2005 and 2010; significant past electoral support in local elections in England, with their lowest share of the popular vote since 2009 being, respectively: the Conservative Party (25.9%); the Labour Party (12.7%) and the Liberal Democrats (11.1%). In addition, in relation to the relevant mayoral elections being contested in 2015 these three parties’ average share of the vote in previous elections for these posts has been: the Conservative Party (18.6%); the Labour Party (17.3%) and the Liberal Democrats (17.5%); and significant past electoral support in a range of other significant elections in England with the lowest share of the vote being 19.7% (in relation to the Conservative Party and the Labour Party). The Liberal Democrats have demonstrated lower levels of past electoral support in other significant elections in England since 2010, of between 4.2% and 9.5%;
• in terms of evidence of current support on the basis of the Great Britain-wide polls in 2014, these polls indicated significant support for the Conservative Party (31.3% to 32.6%) and the Labour Party (35.0%to 36.1%). The relevant polls indicated a lower level of support for the Liberal Democrats (8.2%to 8.8%);
• in relation to UKIP: this party has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in General Elections in England. In 2010 UKIP had 3.5% of the vote and in 2005 it had 2.5% of the vote; however UKIP has performed much more strongly in the last two sets of English local elections, in 2013 and 2014, obtaining 19.9% and 15.7% of the vote, respectively, in these years; in the two relevant mayoral elections it contested, UKIP obtained 5.4% share of the vote on average; UKIP demonstrated significant electoral support in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections, by being the largest party in England with 29.2% of the vote; in other significant elections in England since 2010 its share of the vote has been between 2.0% and 20.7%. In particular, UKIP has won its first two Westminster Parliamentary seats in by-elections; and in terms of current support, Great Britain-wide opinion polls in 2014 demonstrated significant levels of current support for UKIP over a sustained period with an average polling figure of 13.5% to 13.9%;
in relation to the Green Party:
this party has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in General Elections in England. In 2010, the Green Party had 1.0% of the vote(and winning one Westminster seat in England in the 2010 General Election) and in 2005 1.1% of the vote; in English local elections since 2009, the Green Party has obtained between 3.4% and 6.6% of votes. The Green Party’s average share of the vote in previous elections for mayoral posts has been 4.0%; the Green Party achieved 8.0% of the vote in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections in England. in other significant elections in England since 2010 its share of the vote has varied between 0.2% and 8.5%; and in terms of current support, Great Britain-wide opinion polls in 2014 show that the Green Party has
an average of 4.0%, with its highest share being 5.9% in December 2014; (and was 4.0% on average for 2014) in Great-Britain wide opinion polls. Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that the Green Party (including the Scottish Green Party) has not sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
•no other parties have demonstrated significant levels of past electoral support or current support in England
The Green Party (including the Scottish Green Party):
This party has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in General Elections. This party has performed better in some elections (such as the 2014 European Parliamentary elections, obtaining 8.0% and 8.1% of the vote in England and Scotland). In terms of evidence of current support, this party’s opinion poll rating has increased in recent months to 5.9% in December 2014 (and was 4.0% on average for 2014) in Great-Britain wide opinion polls. Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that the Green Party (including the Scottish Green Party) has not sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
2.18 UKIP:
In relation to this party we observed that:
a) UKIP has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in previous General Elections (achieving between 0.7% and
3.5% of the vote in England, Wales and Scotland in 2010 and between 0.4% and 2.5% of the vote in England, Wales and Scotland in 2005 nor ever won a Parliamentary seat at a General Election).
b) UKIP’s performance in a number of other significant forms of election has, however, been stronger. Notably, since the 2010 General Election:
• UKIP has won two seats in Parliament at recent by-elections. UKIP obtained 59.7% of the vote in Clacton on 9 October 2014 and 42.1% in Rochester and Strood on 20 November 2014. We recognised, however, that levels of support indicated by by-election outcomes may reflect specific circumstances that do not necessarily apply to a General Election;
• UKIP demonstrated a significant level of support in England and Wales in the European Parliament elections in 2014 (29.2% in England and 29.6% in Wales). UKIP’s share of the vote was lower in Scotland (10.5%); and
• UKIP has received significant levels of support in the English local elections (15.7% in 2014 and 19.9% in 2013).
c) The opinion poll data indicates that UKIP currently has significant levels of support in England and Wales to the extent that it has the third highest rating in those polls after the Conservative and Labour parties. Opinion poll data in Scotland shows lower levels of current support.
d) The level of support for UKIP exhibited in the opinion poll data for England and Wales has been growing steadily for a number of years in the period since the 2010 General Election (from an average of 7.4% in 2012 to an average 13.5% in 2014, in the BBC Poll of Polls, and from an average of 8.2% in 2012 to an average of 13.9% in 2014 in the Polling Observatory figures).
2.19 Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that UKIP has sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the purposes of the General Election and English local (and mayoral) elections in May 2015
minininja wrote:It's entirely open to subjectivity, bias and even corruption. If this methodology was tried in science for selection of data samples it would be thrown out immediately.
Compared to your method it fucking sparkles.
In fact scientists regularly use far more arbitrary selection techniques for what to study and consider important. As a preliminary estimate it's very thorough and professional. That document is 50 pages long.
minininja wrote:The right way to do it would be pick some sensible criteria and stick to it.
That's exactly what they
have done. You just haven't bothered to look it up and instead are having a little whinge about it here.
minininja wrote:It doesn't really matter what criteria are used, even if they are arbitrary figures, as long as they are moderately sensible, applied equally to all parties, and spelled out beforehand so at least parties know what they've got to aim for. - Rather than this "Comparing this party to that on this measure, and comparing them to another party on another measure, on balance we think..." bullshit, we've had from the broadcasters and Ofcom.
That's exactly what they have done. Parties know that their performance is analysed (as detailed extensively above) by an average of election performances over the last few cycles with special emphasis place on elections of the same type and by reliable average of current UK polling performance. The only thing that isn't absolutely spelled out is an exact threshold, although there's a substantial history of these consultation documents that fixes the ranges for number of seats and opinion poll levels really quite accurately for those obsessed over the detail.
This degree of flexibility is no greater than that found in binding legal agreements and laws in many instances. Allowing for precedent and circumstance to be accommodated.
by 
