<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LibDems ahead on 58%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 16:42:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Chapman</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-68213</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Chapman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-68213</guid>
		<description>I must add my indignation to Chris Lightfoot&#039;s! I&#039;m one of the creators of WSYVF - we have no political agenda, and we are *not* an advertising agency, and we are *not* &#039;sugging&#039;! We set it up to help inform people and stimulate debate, with the added benefit of promoting our fairly new business and what we can achieve. The only client we have is ourselves. We are not party members, and have no axe to grind at all.

(And as Chris points out, he was not involved - his company hosts the site, and he helped with a bit of optimisation advice.) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I must add my indignation to Chris Lightfoot&#8217;s! I&#8217;m one of the creators of <span class="caps">WSYVF </span>- we have no political agenda, and we are <strong>not</strong> an advertising agency, and we are <strong>not</strong> &#8216;sugging&#8217;! We set it up to help inform people and stimulate debate, with the added benefit of promoting our fairly new business and what we can achieve. The only client we have is ourselves. We are not party members, and have no axe to grind at all.</p>

	<p>(And as Chris points out, he was not involved &#8211; his company hosts the site, and he helped with a bit of optimisation advice.)</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cdm</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-68013</link>
		<dc:creator>cdm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-68013</guid>
		<description>[chris lightfoot] Thanks for the clarification -- and I have to say I am glad to learn that you didn&#039;t write it, since it strikes me as much less careful than your political survey.  And apologies if my speculations appeared to impugn you in any way; that was not my intention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[chris lightfoot] Thanks for the clarification&#8212;and I have to say I am glad to learn that you didn&#8217;t write it, since it strikes me as much less careful than your political survey.  And apologies if my speculations appeared to impugn you in any way; that was not my intention.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reuben</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67970</link>
		<dc:creator>reuben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67970</guid>
		<description>I won&#039;t be eligible to vote in the UK until the next time round, but I&#039;ve got to say I&#039;ve got my doubts about the usefulness of this quiz - though it is mildly interesting. It seems that there&#039;s a lack of weighting of issues, so if I vaguely agree with an issue that isn&#039;t really important to me, but that apparently pegs me as UKIP, of all parties, then whaddayaknow? I should apparently vote UKIP before Labour! I&#039;m an immigrant for godsakes! (NOt that Labour is exactly making me love &#039;em on that issue.) I&#039;d sooner gnaw my own arm off at the elbow and then watch Robert Kilroy-Silk run it through his Magimix.

More importantly, though - I know that one of you CTers is a red (Liverpool not Marx). Congrats on a truly fine tie. Really lovely stuff. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I won&#8217;t be eligible to vote in the UK until the next time round, but I&#8217;ve got to say I&#8217;ve got my doubts about the usefulness of this quiz &#8211; though it is mildly interesting. It seems that there&#8217;s a lack of weighting of issues, so if I vaguely agree with an issue that isn&#8217;t really important to me, but that apparently pegs me as <span class="caps">UKIP</span>, of all parties, then whaddayaknow? I should apparently vote <span class="caps">UKIP</span> before Labour! I&#8217;m an immigrant for godsakes! (NOt that Labour is exactly making me love &#8216;em on that issue.) I&#8217;d sooner gnaw my own arm off at the elbow and then watch Robert Kilroy-Silk run it through his Magimix.</p>

	<p>More importantly, though &#8211; I know that one of you CTers is a red (Liverpool not Marx). Congrats on a truly fine tie. Really lovely stuff.</p>


 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Lightfoot</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67963</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Lightfoot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67963</guid>
		<description>&quot;... which identified the test as written by Chris Lightfoot.&quot;

I did &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; write this test -- it was done by some people at ThoughtPlay. I did spend a couple of minutes doing some optimisations on the server setup, and I did make some comments about the questions, but I didn’t have any influence on how the test works. I’d be grateful if you could correct this in the post at the top....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;&#8230; which identified the test as written by Chris Lightfoot.&#8221;</p>

	<p>I did <strong>not</strong> write this test&#8212;it was done by some people at ThoughtPlay. I did spend a couple of minutes doing some optimisations on the server setup, and I did make some comments about the questions, but I didn&#8217;t have any influence on how the test works. I&#8217;d be grateful if you could correct this in the post at the top&#8230;.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2005 UK General Election &#187; General Election blog roundup #5: Friday 15th April</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67961</link>
		<dc:creator>2005 UK General Election &#187; General Election blog roundup #5: Friday 15th April</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67961</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8217;s an interesting discussion of the Who Should You Vote For? site in the comments on this post at Crooked Timber. Elsewhere on CT, John Quiggin discusses preferential voting [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[...] &#8217;s an interesting discussion of the Who Should You Vote For? site in the comments on this post at Crooked Timber. Elsewhere on CT, John Quiggin discusses preferential voting [...]</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Dodsworth</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67898</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Dodsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67898</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Sam, perhaps you don’t realize this, but you are accusing the creators of the site of lying.&lt;/i&gt;

The site was created by an advertising agency, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thoughtplay.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Thoughtplay Ltd&lt;/a&gt;, so I feel pretty safe in saying that it&#039;s not a dispassionate exercise in curiosity. They&#039;re not _technically_ lying when they call it a &#039;comparative tool&#039;, but what they mean is that it lets you compare your opinions with those of the Lib Dem manifesto. So I stand by my original diagnosis of &#039;sleazy marketing trick&#039;. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Sam, perhaps you don&#8217;t realize this, but you are accusing the creators of the site of lying.</i></p>

	<p>The site was created by an advertising agency, <a href="http://www.thoughtplay.com/" rel="nofollow">Thoughtplay Ltd</a>, so I feel pretty safe in saying that it&#8217;s not a dispassionate exercise in curiosity. They&#8217;re not <em>technically</em> lying when they call it a &#8216;comparative tool&#8217;, but what they mean is that it lets you compare your opinions with those of the Lib Dem manifesto. So I stand by my original diagnosis of &#8216;sleazy marketing trick&#8217;.</p>

 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cdm</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67889</link>
		<dc:creator>cdm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67889</guid>
		<description>Oops.  I read this entry and posted my comment before seeing Chris Bertram&#039;s previous posting, which identified the test as written by Chris Lightfoot.  The basic point stands, though.  As other commenters have noted, the selection of questions is small and selective, and seems to be giving results that do not align well with respondents&#039; expectations.  One possibility is that people are ignorant of which party best represents their views.  Another is that the questions have been chosen/weighted in a way that delivers a bias (probably accidental, but conceivably deliberate) in the voting recommendations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Oops.  I read this entry and posted my comment before seeing Chris Bertram&#8217;s previous posting, which identified the test as written by Chris Lightfoot.  The basic point stands, though.  As other commenters have noted, the selection of questions is small and selective, and seems to be giving results that do not align well with respondents&#8217; expectations.  One possibility is that people are ignorant of which party best represents their views.  Another is that the questions have been chosen/weighted in a way that delivers a bias (probably accidental, but conceivably deliberate) in the voting recommendations.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cdm</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67888</link>
		<dc:creator>cdm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67888</guid>
		<description>The survey puts &quot;With thanks to Chris Lightfoot&quot; at the bottom, and it seems pretty certain that this is the same Chris Lightfoot who shows up on the CT blogroll.  He produced &lt;a href=&quot;http://politics.beasts.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this political survey&lt;/a&gt; which was widely discussed in the blogosphere (including on CT, if I recall correctly) and I think generally acknowledged to be better than the Political Compass that was also circulating at the time.

It&#039;s unclear from this acknowledgement what role Chris Lightfoot played in the design of the test. Lightfoot evidently does hold some strong political views on certain issues, as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.proudofbritain.net/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; indicates, for example. He also &lt;a href=&quot;http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/surveys/polsurvey.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pins down one corner&lt;/a&gt; on his own test.

Is this suggestive of a conscious or unconscious agenda in the choice and weighting of questions at &quot;Who Sould You Vote For?&quot; I&#039;m honestly not sure.  Your kilometrage may vary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The survey puts &#8220;With thanks to Chris Lightfoot&#8221; at the bottom, and it seems pretty certain that this is the same Chris Lightfoot who shows up on the CT blogroll.  He produced <a href="http://politics.beasts.org/" rel="nofollow">this political survey</a> which was widely discussed in the blogosphere (including on CT, if I recall correctly) and I think generally acknowledged to be better than the Political Compass that was also circulating at the time.</p>

	<p>It&#8217;s unclear from this acknowledgement what role Chris Lightfoot played in the design of the test. Lightfoot evidently does hold some strong political views on certain issues, as <a href="http://www.proudofbritain.net/" rel="nofollow">this</a> indicates, for example. He also <a href="http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/surveys/polsurvey.html" rel="nofollow">pins down one corner</a> on his own test.</p>

	<p>Is this suggestive of a conscious or unconscious agenda in the choice and weighting of questions at &#8220;Who Sould You Vote For?&#8221; I&#8217;m honestly not sure.  Your kilometrage may vary.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jb</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67884</link>
		<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:12:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67884</guid>
		<description>Another USA (center-to-left Democrat) data point:

Lib Dem +30
Green +22
UKIP +10
Labour -3
Tory -17

Isn&#039;t a test of this sort inherently biased against the party in government? If one thought that Labour was, broadly speaking, governing well (presumably a common opinion in Britain), that wouldn&#039;t register too clearly with this sort of question. This may be responsible for some of the difference between users&#039; expectations and the site&#039;s suggestions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Another <span class="caps">USA </span>(center-to-left Democrat) data point:</p>

	<p>Lib Dem +30<br />
Green +22<br />
<span class="caps">UKIP </span>+10<br />
Labour -3<br />
Tory -17</p>

	<p>Isn&#8217;t a test of this sort inherently biased against the party in government? If one thought that Labour was, broadly speaking, governing well (presumably a common opinion in Britain), that wouldn&#8217;t register too clearly with this sort of question. This may be responsible for some of the difference between users&#8217; expectations and the site&#8217;s suggestions.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: g</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67876</link>
		<dc:creator>g</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67876</guid>
		<description>The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Labour and Conservative parties more than they disagree with one another. This suggests a possible innocent explanation for the large number of LibDemmy things in their alleged neutral selection of issues on which the parties differ.

They do seem to state quite strongly that they aren&#039;t shilling for any party, and I don&#039;t see any glaring loopholes or weasel-words in what they wrote. Which doesn&#039;t mean they&#039;re honest, but it does mean that if they&#039;re actually working for the Lib Dems then the latter are taking something of a risk of severe embarrassment if found out.

(Best candidate loophole I can find: they say that they haven&#039;t &quot;received payment&quot; from any political party or politically motivated organization; that would strictly speaking be compatible with having been promised payment but not paid yet.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Labour and Conservative parties more than they disagree with one another. This suggests a possible innocent explanation for the large number of LibDemmy things in their alleged neutral selection of issues on which the parties differ.</p>

	<p>They do seem to state quite strongly that they aren&#8217;t shilling for any party, and I don&#8217;t see any glaring loopholes or weasel-words in what they wrote. Which doesn&#8217;t mean they&#8217;re honest, but it does mean that if they&#8217;re actually working for the Lib Dems then the latter are taking something of a risk of severe embarrassment if found out.</p>

	<p>(Best candidate loophole I can find: they say that they haven&#8217;t &#8220;received payment&#8221; from any political party or politically motivated organization; that would strictly speaking be compatible with having been promised payment but not paid yet.)</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67873</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67873</guid>
		<description>My wife explained to me that I am opposed to fox hunting, and so I re-took the test. I made some other very small adjustment and got

Labour 12
Conservative 33
Liberal Dem -33
UKIP 32
Green -6 

I have found that the test can be fairly sensitive to small changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>My wife explained to me that I am opposed to fox hunting, and so I re-took the test. I made some other very small adjustment and got</p>

	<p>Labour 12<br />
Conservative 33<br />
Liberal Dem -33<br />
<span class="caps">UKIP 32</span><br />
Green -6</p>

	<p>I have found that the test can be fairly sensitive to small changes.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Answer Guy</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67870</link>
		<dc:creator>Answer Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67870</guid>
		<description>Oh, yeah....I came out as a LibDem (40, with UKIP interestingly enough not far behind) but I sort of expected that since Blair and New Labour rub me the wrong way. 

In the USA I&#039;m pretty well left-of-center. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Oh, yeah&#8230;.I came out as a LibDem (40, with <span class="caps">UKIP</span> interestingly enough not far behind) but I sort of expected that since Blair and New Labour rub me the wrong way.</p>

	<p>In the <span class="caps">USA I</span>&#8217;m pretty well left-of-center.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Answer Guy</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67869</link>
		<dc:creator>Answer Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67869</guid>
		<description>&quot;The DUP will get between 8 &amp; 10 [seats]&quot;

They specificially did not cover any of the nation-specific parties (DUP, UUP, SF, SDLP, SNP, SSP, PC) - if they did, they would had to double or triple the number of questions.  

I guess I&#039;m thankful as an American - I follow UK elections in a casual way but I can&#039;t say I&#039;ve ever given much thought to, say, Welsh sovereignty. I have no idea what the Northern Ireland parties have to say about anything other than, well, Northern Ireland&#039;s position vis-a-vis the UK. I&#039;ve only gotten the idea that Plaid and SNP are vaguely left-wing in addition to being pro-devolution. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;The <span class="caps">DUP</span> will get between 8 &#038; 10 [seats]&#8221;</p>

	<p>They specificially did not cover any of the nation-specific parties (DUP, <span class="caps">UUP</span>, SF, <span class="caps">SDLP</span>, SNP, <span class="caps">SSP</span>, PC) &#8211; if they did, they would had to double or triple the number of questions.</p>

	<p>I guess I&#8217;m thankful as an American &#8211; I follow UK elections in a casual way but I can&#8217;t say I&#8217;ve ever given much thought to, say, Welsh sovereignty. I have no idea what the Northern Ireland parties have to say about anything other than, well, Northern Ireland&#8217;s position vis-a-vis the UK. I&#8217;ve only gotten the idea that Plaid and <span class="caps">SNP</span> are vaguely left-wing in addition to being pro-devolution.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: junius ponds</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67843</link>
		<dc:creator>junius ponds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67843</guid>
		<description>This American identifies strongly with the historical Labour Party but expected to be matched with the Lib Dems:

Labour 3
Conservative -18     	
Liberal Democrat 40
UK Independence Party 1
Green -1     	

As other commentators noted, a large fraction of the questions concerned Lib Dem policy positions.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This American identifies strongly with the historical Labour Party but expected to be matched with the Lib Dems:</p>

	<p>Labour 3<br />
Conservative -18<br />
Liberal Democrat 40<br />
<span class="caps">UK </span>Independence Party 1<br />
Green -1</p>

	<p>As other commentators noted, a large fraction of the questions concerned Lib Dem policy positions.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/comment-page-1/#comment-67840</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/04/14/libdems-ahead-on-58/#comment-67840</guid>
		<description>Another observation from the USA:
Labour -4
Conservative 39
Liberal Dem -33
UKIP 38
Green 2
I agree with Keith: I simply have no frame of reference for some of the issues. 
I went for the Dems in the last two in the US, but only barely. Engaging in gross casual empiricism, I interpret these results as follows: the Republicans have turned off allot of traditional conservatives like myself with this addiction of theirs to the religious right.
 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Another observation from the <span class="caps">USA</span>:<br />
Labour -4<br />
Conservative 39<br />
Liberal Dem -33<br />
<span class="caps">UKIP 38</span><br />
Green 2<br />
I agree with Keith: I simply have no frame of reference for some of the issues.<br />
I went for the Dems in the last two in the US, but only barely. Engaging in gross casual empiricism, I interpret these results as follows: the Republicans have turned off allot of traditional conservatives like myself with this addiction of theirs to the religious right.</p>


 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

