@MrTCHarris: This represents an SNP > Conservative swing of 12% twitter.com/scotelects/sta…
I exclusively take my scotland information from subsamples, so no dice.
That's the subsample from his mega poll (that had 40% SNP 2015 recollection).
His indy ref polling was probably the most woefully useless of the lot, 2 different pollsters over several months amalgamated if memory serves.
James Kelly has almost identical figures. I would posit that Ashcroft is not a million miles out here.
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw, my point is really that he indulges in some pretty strange methodology at times. I think Ashcroft's Scottish constituency polling in 2015 was pretty straightforward, and all the better for it.
Ashcroft's Scottish polling in 2015 wasn't that good, really. I remember he predicted Glasgow North East as a Labour hold - in the event, it was one of the very biggest swings of the lot.
Overall Ashcroft's Scottish Constituency polling was shockingly accurate.
It does look like the Dims are being squeezed, but I still think Labour are being significantly overstated. I just cannot believe they are polling better than Milibnad was. If they are, it makes a mockery of the moderates claim that one of their own would make a better leader. Remember Labour's 2015 front bench contained the vast majority of all of the touted leadership contenders. Collectively they achieved less than 32%. If Corbyn matches that (and I think that's highly improbable), it will lead to a Labour split, there's no question about that.
I'm sceptical, but if he manages it, I actually think a split is less likely - they'd have less chance of taking lots of members and MPs with them if Corbyn actually, percentage wise, does ok.
I think Thornberry is quite a good spokesperson. She's quite good (by Labour standards) at defending the line in interviews and getting the basic numbers right sounding like she knows what she's talking about.
She'd be awful as the actual leader though, at least if Labour wants to hold working-class Northern and Midlands seats at some point in the future.
While you may be right in that she would be a disaster for the party, (but its hard to think she could be/would be worse than Corbyn)
But I disagree with you other wise:
'She sends her kids to fee paying school' - so she recognises that fee paying schools normally produce better results, and cares about her Kids education to send them there - Good for her!!!
She may be an terrible politician, I certainly disagree with her politics but please can we stay away form the ad-homily attacks on her personally.
I think if you campaign for ‘social housing for all, not luxury flats for the wealthy’ (as Thornberry did), then you are a hypocrite if you buy social housing, make the tenants homeless and then rent it out.
Similarly, if you campaign for an end to selective education, you are a hypocrite if you then send your children to a fee-paying school.
I think if she was Labour Party leader, there would be rather more examination of her personal circumstances and lifestyle choices than would be comfortable -- either for her, or (perhaps more importantly) for the Labour Party.
I very much doubt she 'bought social housing and then made the tenants homeless' simply because you cant do that, If you live in a council house you have a right to buy it, and then 5 years later you can sell it on, (without a penalty)
If she owns a ex cancel house then it will be because, the tenant bought it and then latter sold it to her, or to somebody else who then sold it on.
Your caritirisation of the events, to me, makes it look like you simply dislike the lady and and happily spread add homily attacks on her.
Selective Education i.e. grammar schools, and Fee Paying education i.e. privet school are not the same thing, many people that support one also support the other and the other way round but not everyone and to showt out hypocrisy is just silly when they are clearly not the same thing.
And again I don't like her policy positions on, well, just about anything. but she does not deserve to be lied about.
@MrTCHarris: This represents an SNP > Conservative swing of 12% twitter.com/scotelects/sta…
I exclusively take my scotland information from subsamples, so no dice.
That's the subsample from his mega poll (that had 40% SNP 2015 recollection).
His indy ref polling was probably the most woefully useless of the lot, 2 different pollsters over several months amalgamated if memory serves.
James Kelly has almost identical figures. I would posit that Ashcroft is not a million miles out here.
Mebbes aye, mebbes naw, my point is really that he indulges in some pretty strange methodology at times. I think Ashcroft's Scottish constituency polling in 2015 was pretty straightforward, and all the better for it.
Ashcroft's Scottish polling in 2015 wasn't that good, really. I remember he predicted Glasgow North East as a Labour hold - in the event, it was one of the very biggest swings of the lot.
Overall Ashcroft's Scottish Constituency polling was shockingly accurate.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
Far more likely that the polls are overstating Labour.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
I suspect that a part of the Lab rise, will be former lab voters who where saying 'don't know' now begrudgingly returning to labour because, well, they always have, Part of that is being mentioned on the door step, may be such people, who are returning to lab, but still want to make there point.
I don't know what proportion of Lab members are activists and will be 'banging on doors' probably only 15,000 to 20,000 IIRC form pervious election, but I suspect this part of the lab membership will not be voting to keep Corbyn as leader.
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Perhaps if Burnham had taken that platform 2 years ago he would have won the leadership election?
TSE : "Note: This video contains language NSFW from Emily Thornberry that maybe offend more delicate PBers."
I can hardly imagine any Pbers who have been forced to become accustomed to your recent foul language on PB.com would be in the least offended by the considerably milder form from Emily Thornberry. I can't recall reading similar warnings from your goodself.
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Perhaps if Burnham had taken that platform 2 years ago he would have won the leadership election?
No. The membership would have never accepted "immigration controls" too ukippy. Liz Kendal suggested the underpreformance of white working class boys needs to be looked at during the leadership contest, she was scolded as a dog whistle campaigner.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
Far more likely that the polls are overstating Labour.
Indeed. There have been discussions on this topic already. There are a number of theories, but my take is that some or all of the pollsters have been fiddling with their weightings in terms of 2015 vote share - basically, too few voters in the surveys are admitting to having voted Labour in 2015, so their current share is being adjusted upwards, and the polar opposite is happening with the Lib Dems.
There is also a degree of minor party squeeze. My assessment of the data is that (at a guess) about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 Ukip defectors are returning to Labour, and Labour are also winning some votes from the Greens.
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Perhaps if Burnham had taken that platform 2 years ago he would have won the leadership election?
The electorate is different. That platform might have made him PM, but would not have won the Labour Leadership. Appealing to one, repels the other.
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Perhaps if Burnham had taken that platform 2 years ago he would have won the leadership election?
No. The membership would have never accepted "immigration controls" too ukippy. Liz Kendal suggested the underpreformance of white working class boys needs to be looked at during the leadership contest, she was scolded as a dog whistle campaigner.
Controlled immigration is now Labour policy under Corbyn's leadership. There we go.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
I very much doubt she 'bought social housing and then made the tenants homeless' simply because you cant do that, If you live in a council house you have a right to buy it, and then 5 years later you can sell it on, (without a penalty)
If she owns a ex cancel house then it will be because, the tenant bought it and then latter sold it to her, or to somebody else who then sold it on.
Your caritirisation of the events, to me, makes it look like you simply dislike the lady and and happily spread add homily attacks on her.
Selective Education i.e. grammar schools, and Fee Paying education i.e. privet school are not the same thing, many people that support one also support the other and the other way round but not everyone and to showt out hypocrisy is just silly when they are clearly not the same thing.
And again I don't like her policy positions on, well, just about anything. but she does not deserve to be lied about.
That is quite an ugly ad hominem attack on me (accusation of lying) -- which is surprising if you are against ad hominem attacks !
I am reporting material that it is on the web, reproduced in newspapers, and so on.
Whilst I am not so naive as to believe everything I read is 100 per cent true, I do think that if the material were completely false, Thornberry would have resorted to legal action (after all, her husband is a barrister).
On her choice of schools: “I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician,’ commented Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools. ‘When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children”
On the tenants and the social housing, Councillor Terry Stacy, deputy Lib Dem leader, said: “Emily Thornberry has tried to make a name for herself by opposing Islington’s policies on affordable housing. This is nothing less than hypocrisy.”
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
That said, I don't really think Tories mingling with Assad will be that damaging to them. The thing is that people view both Assad and Putin as bastards, but bastards who aren't out particularly to harm us - and so they're the lesser evil in the current world, as compared to jihadist nutters who really are out to destroy us.
And that's where Corbyn's real vulnerability is, his calling Hamas "friends" and generally giving the impression he'd want to naively "negotiate" with ISIS, mixed together with wanting to scrap Trident, which altogether does make people scared (frankly, even as someone campaigning for Labour, it makes even me a bit scared; my hope/assumption is that, in the incredibly unlikely event of Corbyn winning, he would just focus on domestic matters while the grown-ups in Labour would take charge of all defence/foreign issues).
Not having Trident as a policy does not seem to harm the SNP .Fallon saying he keeps the first strike option open to me is total rubbish in reality .However I agree that Kinnock had to change his mind between 87 and 92 and Labour policy to get a hearing with the wider public.
A leader might, MIGHT, be able to get away with a commitment to scrapping Trident if they otherwise took a tough stance on terrorism, and were generally regarded as tough and competent. Unfortunately, Corbyn isn't - at all.
IMHO, a party could get elected on a socialist economic programme, from time to time, if it was led by patriots, like Attlee's government.
But, left wing economics, combined with hostility towards one's country is an electoral dead end.
Admittedly Mayoral elections are a bit of a different kettle of fish to general elections, but even so, there should atleast a bit of a clue for the path Labour needs to take from Andy Burnham in Gtr Manchester: he campaigned on a "Blue Labour" platform (accepting Brexit and immigration controls, leftish on economics) and romped home virtually everywhere, taking the Ukip vote in the working-class towns around Manchester, holding strong in Manchester itself, outperforming Blair 1997 in the suburbs.
Perhaps if Burnham had taken that platform 2 years ago he would have won the leadership election?
The electorate is different. That platform might have made him PM, but would not have won the Labour Leadership. Appealing to one, repels the other.
He would have won had Harman not forced him and Cooper to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals. That was what gave Corbyn the momentum to win the contest.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
The polls are broken.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
Pretty brutal from Emily but it was rightly used to deflate Michael and blunt his attack rather than seriously suggest Tories are for dictators. I think the "come off it" response to Tory hysteria about security is better than taking it seriously.
The lead is not really the interesting trend. Labour and Tories up, UKIP and LD down are the interesting trends.
I doubt UKIP can be squeezed much below 4%. How low can the LDs be squeezed?
This truly is a fascinating period for British politics.
But the Tories are down, only by 0.24% but down is down.
I was talking about the trends. The line between two data points is not a trend, and as it is only one change datum, has no statistical significance regarding the trend.
Over the period the Tories are up from 45.5% to 46.86%
"The British researcher who helped to limit the effects of the global cyber-attack that paralysed parts of the NHS has warned that a second wave of strikes could arrive on Monday.
In England, 48 NHS trusts fell victim to the hack, which caused major disruption to routine procedures and emergency services, including the cancelling of operations and postponement of cancer treatments.
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, said yesterday that all but six of the trusts were back to normal following the attacks that crippled IT systems by locking computers and demanding a ransom.
The anonymous researcher, known as MalwareTech, was credited with protecting thousands of computers from the malicious software by paying a small fee to take control of a web domain linked to the bug.
Speaking to the BBC today the researcher said it was crucial that an update was used to patch a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows software, which was exploited by the malware.
“It’s very important that people patch their systems now,” he said.
“We have stopped this one, but there will be another one coming and it will not be stoppable by us.
“There’s a lot of money in this. There’s no reason for them to stop. It’s not really much effort for them to change the code and then start over.
“So there’s a good chance they are going to do it ... maybe not this weekend, but quite likely on Monday morning.”
The Government appears, surprisingly to have escaped much of the blame for the cyber attack which struck much of the NHS this weekend. Would they be so lucky were the whole chaotic process to be repeated tomorrow as is being suggested ? ...... I very much doubt it. This smacks of possibly becoming THE Black Swan issue of the General Election campaign.
Question. With Ireland playing NZ in a ODI, do the Brits support Ireland or NZ?
Makes more sense to support Ireland because if their players perform well they'll end up in the England team, whereas the New Zealanders will always be rivals (albeit more edifying than most).
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
The polls are broken.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
Is it remotely possible that the Corbynistas have saturated online polling surveys? Or do they have systems to stop over representation in that manner? Can they 'weed out' deliberate attempts to inflate the polls?
It wouldn't surprise me if they did at least attempt something to skew the polling, they are obviously desperate enough to try and give Corbyn any advantage possible.
Like someone else said, there is huge anecdotal evidence of the hostility towards Corbyn on the door step, coinciding with an apparent sizeable increase in their vote share. Doesn't add up.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
The polls are broken.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
If that is so, we should all be lumping on Labour, or maybe even LDs, UKIP, and Any Other.
One of the more amusing notions is that the 2017 GE is a "snap" election. In campaigning terms, it's going to be as long and drawn out as 1997 and compared to February 1974 when there was only three weeks between Heath seeking a dissolution and Polling Day, it's an eternity.
I mention this only because it's a marathon not a sprint and for all the excitement on here on a daily and hourly basis and all the patrolling of the partisans, the key data from last night's poll is 32% have yet to decide how they will vote.
It's also my view the vast majority haven't yet engaged with the election and won't do so until after the next Bank Holiday weekend. In effect, we are still very much in a phoney war - yes, there is canvassing, leafletting and social media campaigning aplenty but the proximity of the contest will finally concentrate minds.
Will it make any difference ? Will the set piece debates and interviews have an impact ? Don't know - it's hard to see beyond a substantial Conservative victory but there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before that happens. Labour are doing better at this stage than seemed likely and it may be the campaign will be the making of some of the Corbyn supporters forcing them to defend the indefensible and there have been signs in the past 72 hours of an improved media performance.
Long way to go and, I suspect, twists and turns aplenty to keep us amused and entertained.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
It's simple, people who say they are going to vote Labour won't turn out on the day. The supplementals are horrific - best PM points to a shellacing of epic proportions
Martin Boon of ICM said in April that "polls were underestimating Labour" when polling c 25%. Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
The polls are broken.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
If that is so, we should all be lumping on Labour, or maybe even LDs, UKIP, and Any Other.
I've been hinting as much myself, Twin Tower, over the past 48 hours, well at least as far as Labour possible upside is concerned, not so sure about the other parties. Unlike Yours Truly, Nick Palmer has probably wisely been cautioning against placing spread bets for now ..... the danger is of course that if one delays too long, one misses the boat, the value and therefore the profit ...... of course one might also dodge the losses! This IS high risk betting and great care is required. DYOR.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
That is quite an ugly ad hominem attack on me (accusation of lying) -- which is surprising if you are against ad hominem attacks !
I am reporting material that it is on the web, reproduced in newspapers, and so on.
Whilst I am not so naive as to believe everything I read is 100 per cent true, I do think that if the material were completely false, Thornberry would have resorted to legal action (after all, her husband is a barrister).
On her choice of schools: “I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician,’ commented Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools. ‘When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children”
On the tenants and the social housing, Councillor Terry Stacy, deputy Lib Dem leader, said: “Emily Thornberry has tried to make a name for herself by opposing Islington’s policies on affordable housing. This is nothing less than hypocrisy.”
I note that when she threatened Guido Fawkes with legal action, it was Thornberry who backed down.
She’d be a pretty stupid choice for next Labour leader. Labour are in the Last Chance Saloon -- they need to get the next leader right.
Labour, as a party, have made mistakes including Corbyn, but no they are not yet in the last chance saloon, if they can still greet 25-30% with Corbyn, then Thornberry will not drive that much more of that away. That's not to say she would be a good chose, just not that much worse.
Some times Politian's chose not to take legal action against people, because they do not want the distraction, or do not want to give extra publicity to the accuser. Not taking legal action against somebody is not the same as admitting guilt. Sometimes stopping and thinking, are these accusations credible? should I use google to do some basic fact checking? before repeating accusations made by obviously partisan people, is best before repeating the accusation as if it is fact. To be fair I'm shore I have done that in the past, I would like to think I don't get defensive when it happens but take it on board as a learning experience.
For what it is worth, part of me would like to see her become, Lab leader, because I think she will probably preside over a continued slow decline of the party. But my prediction skills are not as good as some on here so who knows what will happen.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
It can be great value. I won over £1,000 on a £10 bet Spurs would finish below Arsenal when there were five games left. If Spurs don't finish 2nd this season I win £5,000 with two £10 bets. And I've just topped up on Utd for today - £10 at 14-1!
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
It can be great value. I won over £1,000 on a £10 bet Spurs would finish below Arsenal when there were five games left. If Spurs don't finish 2nd this season I win £5,000 with two £10 bets. And I've just topped up on Utd for today - £10 at 14-1!
Southam, I am a United fan. Looks like you will not win any of your bets except have the satisfaction of winning the last game at WHL, which you should savour.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
You are confusing me with somebody else (Peter from Putney?)
Is it remotely possible that the Corbynistas have saturated online polling surveys? Or do they have systems to stop over representation in that manner? Can they 'weed out' deliberate attempts to inflate the polls?...Like someone else said, there is huge anecdotal evidence of the hostility towards Corbyn on the door step....
Yes it is *possible*. But I don't know if it's *happening*. YouGov apply a engagement weight (right word?) to try and ensure their samples are balanced between muggles and party activists, but I don't know how effective it is. Ipsos Mori are the only firm still doing phone polls so if we were seeing Gamergate for Corbyn then Mori would be noticably different, but I'm not sure it is. Happy to be contradicted.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
It can be great value. I won over £1,000 on a £10 bet Spurs would finish below Arsenal when there were five games left. If Spurs don't finish 2nd this season I win £5,000 with two £10 bets. And I've just topped up on Utd for today - £10 at 14-1!
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.
The curse of the successful gambler: "I should have bet more"
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
My own view of the negotiations is that both sides are wrongly estimating the other side's value on certain critical issues, and doing so on a vast scale. This misunderstanding of the other side will inevitably lead to miscalculations on what is offered by both sides, but primarily by the EU. And I think that this will lead to an early breakdown of negotiations.
The hope is that after a period of perhaps a year of subsequent stalemate, negotiations might resume with both sides better assessing the value the other side places on each issue and that the heads of a deal can be reached very quickly prior to the March 19 deadline.
Replying to SquareRoot on the last thread - my impression on the doorstep was that we were winning until the final week, when I started to have doubts (I was just starting to detect the LD->Con swing). By election day I was pretty sure I'd lost, but I didn't share that here, which some punters who'd gone on earlier tips were annoyed about. I'm sorry - it's difficult to combine being an active participant and a judicious commentator, and the compromise I've always used was simply to report truthfully but not necessarily the whole truth, so in the final days I just stopped commenting.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Is it remotely possible that the Corbynistas have saturated online polling surveys? Or do they have systems to stop over representation in that manner? Can they 'weed out' deliberate attempts to inflate the polls?...Like someone else said, there is huge anecdotal evidence of the hostility towards Corbyn on the door step....
Yes it is *possible*. But I don't know if it's *happening*. YouGov apply a engagement weight (right word?) to try and ensure their samples are balanced between muggles and party activists, but I don't know how effective it is. Ipsos Mori are the only firm still doing phone polls so if we were seeing Gamergate for Corbyn then Mori would be noticably different, but I'm not sure it is. Happy to be contradicted.
Question. How come the party with the lowest raw figures are always weighted upwards, yet the party with the highest figures seems to be weighted downwards? Is this standard practice, or is at best an educated guess?
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.
The curse of the successful gambler: "I should have bet more"
I think the Golden Rule must always be never to bet what you can't afford to lose - even if it does lead you to lament the fact you only won £100, when you could have won £1,000.
Danny - the answer to your question goes back a long way - suffice it to say that, yes, we are different people!
TBF, never seen them together in the same room...
We have in fact been in the same room together a number of times, usually a bar. PfP would generally be quaffing Old Speckled Hen, while mine would be a Guinness. Ours is in fact one of the oldest friendships on PB and even though our politics are different, we've always been able to discuss them amicably.
On betting matters we rarely disagree. I regard him as one of the shrewdest punters on the Site, not least because he doesn't allow his political preferences to impair his judgement of a value bet. I always take note of what he says, even if I don't always 'follow him in'.
Oh, and we did once discuss altering our names to minimise confusion, but agreed we both enjoyed maximising it!
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.
The curse of the successful gambler: "I should have bet more"
Especially on leave.. when it hit 12 during the count
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
It can be great value. I won over £1,000 on a £10 bet Spurs would finish below Arsenal when there were five games left. If Spurs don't finish 2nd this season I win £5,000 with two £10 bets. And I've just topped up on Utd for today - £10 at 14-1!
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
Replying to SquareRoot on the last thread - my impression on the doorstep was that we were winning until the final week, when I started to have doubts (I was just starting to detect the LD->Con swing). By election day I was pretty sure I'd lost, but I didn't share that here, which some punters who'd gone on earlier tips were annoyed about. I'm sorry - it's difficult to combine being an active participant and a judicious commentator, and the compromise I've always used was simply to report truthfully but not necessarily the whole truth, so in the final days I just stopped commenting.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
I think we lost the WWC in East Midlands sometime ago. Those who won't leave, will obviously stay.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Different systems, different countries of course, but it does feel like future politicians could learn much from Merkel, who sweeps all before her, though as they say all political careers end in failure. Only 62 though, could go on a long time if she wants.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
There are people who simply will not believe that Labour can reach 32%. Even 34%. There are many in this country who cannot stand the Tories and even if they are unhappy with the current leadership, they will vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority.
Replying to SquareRoot on the last thread - my impression on the doorstep was that we were winning until the final week, when I started to have doubts (I was just starting to detect the LD->Con swing). By election day I was pretty sure I'd lost, but I didn't share that here, which some punters who'd gone on earlier tips were annoyed about. I'm sorry - it's difficult to combine being an active participant and a judicious commentator, and the compromise I've always used was simply to report truthfully but not necessarily the whole truth, so in the final days I just stopped commenting.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
Never trust a candidate's prediction. They are not capable of properly judging the situation. It's a combination of being too close and too emotionally invested. When I stood, I was convinced of victory until 6pm on election day, when canvass returns started to turn against us, but I didn't truly give up hope until the Returning Officer began to speak. I lost by 7,000 votes.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Different systems, different countries of course, but it does feel like future politicians could learn much from Merkel, who sweeps all before her, though as they say all political careers end in failure. Only 62 though, could go on a long time if she wants.
Her visit to Trump - when he behaved like an ignorant boor and she looked like a world leader - was a marvellous boost for Merkel.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
Perhaps the Great British Public have at last started to realise just how far to the left the Green Party stands.
Replying to SquareRoot on the last thread - my impression on the doorstep was that we were winning until the final week, when I started to have doubts (I was just starting to detect the LD->Con swing). By election day I was pretty sure I'd lost, but I didn't share that here, which some punters who'd gone on earlier tips were annoyed about. I'm sorry - it's difficult to combine being an active participant and a judicious commentator, and the compromise I've always used was simply to report truthfully but not necessarily the whole truth, so in the final days I just stopped commenting.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
Nick.
Now that you may surround yourself with the joys of the more disinterested observers along with fine pie makers, would you favour the mere mortals of PB with your best estimation of state of play on June 9th
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
Replying to SquareRoot on the last thread - my impression on the doorstep was that we were winning until the final week, when I started to have doubts (I was just starting to detect the LD->Con swing). By election day I was pretty sure I'd lost, but I didn't share that here, which some punters who'd gone on earlier tips were annoyed about. I'm sorry - it's difficult to combine being an active participant and a judicious commentator, and the compromise I've always used was simply to report truthfully but not necessarily the whole truth, so in the final days I just stopped commenting.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
I think we lost the WWC in East Midlands sometime ago. Those who won't leave, will obviously stay.
We lost them when they set up the Union of Democratic Mineworkers.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
There are people who simply will not believe that Labour can reach 32%. Even 34%. There are many in this country who cannot stand the Tories and even if they are unhappy with the current leadership, they will vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority.
The bigger the Conservative vote share, the more some left wing voters will reluctantly vote Labour.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
Never trust a candidate's prediction. They are not capable of properly judging the situation. It's a combination of being too close and too emotionally invested. When I stood, I was convinced of victory until 6pm on election day, when canvass returns started to turn against us, but I didn't truly give up hope until the Returning Officer began to speak. I lost by 7,000 votes.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
There are people who simply will not believe that Labour can reach 32%. Even 34%. There are many in this country who cannot stand the Tories and even if they are unhappy with the current leadership, they will vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority.
The bigger the Conservative vote share, the more some left wing voters will reluctantly vote Labour.
Either way, it'll be two elections in a row where a coalition of liberal voters and remaining Labour loyalists is proven not to be enough.
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The polls with Labour on 31/32% have the Greens on just 2%. And, there's a rise in certainty to vote.
There are people who simply will not believe that Labour can reach 32%. Even 34%. There are many in this country who cannot stand the Tories and even if they are unhappy with the current leadership, they will vote Labour to reduce the Tory majority.
The bigger the Conservative vote share, the more some left wing voters will reluctantly vote Labour.
Either way, it'll be two elections in a row that prove that a coalition of liberal voters and remaining Labour loyalists isn't enough.
The people will remember what is good for them in time. Why, Gordon Brown was telling everyone the Tories go to war on the poor, who could possibly vote for that?
He would have won had Harman not forced him and Cooper to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals. That was what gave Corbyn the momentum to win the contest.
It was a quite mentalist decision by Harman. A move that had no political benefit for Labour.
Comments
As a result I am giving this match a miss.
According to Wikipedia the polls were in January
I very much doubt she 'bought social housing and then made the tenants homeless' simply because you cant do that, If you live in a council house you have a right to buy it, and then 5 years later you can sell it on, (without a penalty)
If she owns a ex cancel house then it will be because, the tenant bought it and then latter sold it to her, or to somebody else who then sold it on.
Your caritirisation of the events, to me, makes it look like you simply dislike the lady and and happily spread add homily attacks on her.
Selective Education i.e. grammar schools, and Fee Paying education i.e. privet school are not the same thing, many people that support one also support the other and the other way round but not everyone and to showt out hypocrisy is just silly when they are clearly not the same thing.
And again I don't like her policy positions on, well, just about anything. but she does not deserve to be lied about.
Regarding your link to Mike Smithson's tweet about visceral dislike of Corbyn on the doorstep[1]. The anecdata we have suggests that Labour are in for a bad night. But the polls suggest that Labour vote is holding up and has increased by 6-7 points in two weeks, reaching or exceeding the 2015 level.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two.
Is there an explanation for this seeming paradox (is this explained by UKIP->LAB, for example?) or should we start considering the possibility that the polls are wrong (are online polls being gamed, for example?).
Could you organise a thread header on this paradox, please?
[1] ttps://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/863750503846617088 , see also ttps://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/863748559316889600
I don't know what proportion of Lab members are activists and will be 'banging on doors' probably only 15,000 to 20,000 IIRC form pervious election, but I suspect this part of the lab membership will not be voting to keep Corbyn as leader.
I can hardly imagine any Pbers who have been forced to become accustomed to your recent foul language on PB.com would be in the least offended by the considerably milder form from Emily Thornberry. I can't recall reading similar warnings from your goodself.
There is also a degree of minor party squeeze. My assessment of the data is that (at a guess) about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 Ukip defectors are returning to Labour, and Labour are also winning some votes from the Greens.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/863713364169633792
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
I am reporting material that it is on the web, reproduced in newspapers, and so on.
Whilst I am not so naive as to believe everything I read is 100 per cent true, I do think that if the material were completely false, Thornberry would have resorted to legal action (after all, her husband is a barrister).
On her choice of schools: “I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician,’ commented Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools. ‘When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children”
https://tinyurl.com/ltkrd3t
On the tenants and the social housing, Councillor Terry Stacy, deputy Lib Dem leader, said: “Emily Thornberry has tried to make a name for herself by opposing Islington’s policies on affordable housing. This is nothing less than hypocrisy.”
https://tinyurl.com/c8uyh7s
I believe a constituent asked her for help, and it ended up with her husband buying the property. Here is Guido versus Thornberry:
https://tinyurl.com/kxxvysf
I note that when she threatened Guido Fawkes with legal action, it was Thornberry who backed down.
She’d be a pretty stupid choice for next Labour leader. Labour are in the Last Chance Saloon -- they need to get the next leader right.
Since when the polling for Labour has risen.
Remarkably accurate forecasting or ALL pollsters adjusting their numbers? Or a real bounce?
I understand some switching from CP of UK approx 20k ! and Greens but ..
I suggest ALL pollsters have taken fright and changed weightings..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39914195
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
Over the period the Tories are up from 45.5% to 46.86%
"The British researcher who helped to limit the effects of the global cyber-attack that paralysed parts of the NHS has warned that a second wave of strikes could arrive on Monday.
In England, 48 NHS trusts fell victim to the hack, which caused major disruption to routine procedures and emergency services, including the cancelling of operations and postponement of cancer treatments.
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, said yesterday that all but six of the trusts were back to normal following the attacks that crippled IT systems by locking computers and demanding a ransom.
The anonymous researcher, known as MalwareTech, was credited with protecting thousands of computers from the malicious software by paying a small fee to take control of a web domain linked to the bug.
Speaking to the BBC today the researcher said it was crucial that an update was used to patch a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows software, which was exploited by the malware.
“It’s very important that people patch their systems now,” he said.
“We have stopped this one, but there will be another one coming and it will not be stoppable by us.
“There’s a lot of money in this. There’s no reason for them to stop. It’s not really much effort for them to change the code and then start over.
“So there’s a good chance they are going to do it ... maybe not this weekend, but quite likely on Monday morning.”
The Government appears, surprisingly to have escaped much of the blame for the cyber attack which struck much of the NHS this weekend.
Would they be so lucky were the whole chaotic process to be repeated tomorrow as is being suggested ? ...... I very much doubt it. This smacks of possibly becoming THE Black Swan issue of the General Election campaign.
If so, we might narrow the gap by a few more points.
It wouldn't surprise me if they did at least attempt something to skew the polling, they are obviously desperate enough to try and give Corbyn any advantage possible.
Like someone else said, there is huge anecdotal evidence of the hostility towards Corbyn on the door step, coinciding with an apparent sizeable increase in their vote share. Doesn't add up.
One of the more amusing notions is that the 2017 GE is a "snap" election. In campaigning terms, it's going to be as long and drawn out as 1997 and compared to February 1974 when there was only three weeks between Heath seeking a dissolution and Polling Day, it's an eternity.
I mention this only because it's a marathon not a sprint and for all the excitement on here on a daily and hourly basis and all the patrolling of the partisans, the key data from last night's poll is 32% have yet to decide how they will vote.
It's also my view the vast majority haven't yet engaged with the election and won't do so until after the next Bank Holiday weekend. In effect, we are still very much in a phoney war - yes, there is canvassing, leafletting and social media campaigning aplenty but the proximity of the contest will finally concentrate minds.
Will it make any difference ? Will the set piece debates and interviews have an impact ? Don't know - it's hard to see beyond a substantial Conservative victory but there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge before that happens. Labour are doing better at this stage than seemed likely and it may be the campaign will be the making of some of the Corbyn supporters forcing them to defend the indefensible and there have been signs in the past 72 hours of an improved media performance.
Long way to go and, I suspect, twists and turns aplenty to keep us amused and entertained.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
Unlike Yours Truly, Nick Palmer has probably wisely been cautioning against placing spread bets for now ..... the danger is of course that if one delays too long, one misses the boat, the value and therefore the profit ...... of course one might also dodge the losses! This IS high risk betting and great care is required. DYOR.
My simple mind had only just come to terms with the fact that Richard Nabavi and JackW weren't the same person.
Labour, as a party, have made mistakes including Corbyn, but no they are not yet in the last chance saloon, if they can still greet 25-30% with Corbyn, then Thornberry will not drive that much more of that away. That's not to say she would be a good chose, just not that much worse.
Some times Politian's chose not to take legal action against people, because they do not want the distraction, or do not want to give extra publicity to the accuser. Not taking legal action against somebody is not the same as admitting guilt. Sometimes stopping and thinking, are these accusations credible? should I use google to do some basic fact checking? before repeating accusations made by obviously partisan people, is best before repeating the accusation as if it is fact. To be fair I'm shore I have done that in the past, I would like to think I don't get defensive when it happens but take it on board as a learning experience.
For what it is worth, part of me would like to see her become, Lab leader, because I think she will probably preside over a continued slow decline of the party. But my prediction skills are not as good as some on here so who knows what will happen.
Doesn't strike me as the actions of a party confident about leading in the polls...
In every election, the parties trailing always come up with the words "..but there is still x% undecided .."
Do you know what is the same figure just before polling ?
We want:
* A quick deal on citizens
* A comprehensive FTA
* No truck with the ECJ
They want:
* A deal on citizens
* As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
@Peter_the_Punter
@YBarddCwsc
@Jason
@madasafish
@Alistair
@BigRich
@Black_Rook
Thank you for your contributions regarding the Labour paradox ("Why, when the anecdata is so bad, are Labour votes rising?"). I note Black_Rook's observation regarding weights and previous threads and will seek those threads out if time permits.
The hope is that after a period of perhaps a year of subsequent stalemate, negotiations might resume with both sides better assessing the value the other side places on each issue and that the heads of a deal can be reached very quickly prior to the March 19 deadline.
But the basic fact is that I was wrong, anyway - it happens. Canvassing isn't useless (if you have good records of what they said last tim) but it's not infallible either. I post partly for amusement and it's truthful as far as it goes, but I won't claim more. When I say that currently we appear to me to be losing a few 2015 supporters in WWC wards in Nottingham and Broxtowe but not very many, that's factually true. Whether Nottingham or the East Mids is better or worse than elsewhere, however, I have literally no idea.
Overall: clear advantage Merkel.
http://www.ard.de/home/ard/ARD_Startseite/21920/index.html
I see this story isn't going away
On betting matters we rarely disagree. I regard him as one of the shrewdest punters on the Site, not least because he doesn't allow his political preferences to impair his judgement of a value bet. I always take note of what he says, even if I don't always 'follow him in'.
Oh, and we did once discuss altering our names to minimise confusion, but agreed we both enjoyed maximising it!
When I stood, I was convinced of victory until 6pm on election day, when canvass returns started to turn against us, but I didn't truly give up hope until the Returning Officer began to speak. I lost by 7,000 votes.
Martin Shultz has crashed and burned.
Now that you may surround yourself with the joys of the more disinterested observers along with fine pie makers, would you favour the mere mortals of PB with your best estimation of state of play on June 9th
I will avoid using the 'S' word.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
Abolishing University tuition fees and bringing back grants
Good idea 49%
Wrong priority 36%
DK 15%
Renationalising the national grid, railways and Royal Mail
Good idea 46%
Wrong priority 35%
DK 19%
Capping rents so that they can only rise with inflation
Good idea 65%
Wrong priority 20%
DK 15%
Increasing Income Tax for people earning over £80,000 per year
Good idea 58%
Wrong priority 26%
DK 17%
How lovely for Labour! EXCEPT...
Do you think that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well or badly as leader of the Labour Party?
Well 15%
Badly 67%
DK 17%
(For comparison: Do you think that Donald Trump is doing well or badly as President of the United States?
Well 20%
Badly 66%
DK 15%)
Do you think that the Labour Party are making promises that the country can't afford?
Yes 52%
No 20%
DK 28%
In summary:
Interviewer: "Would you like a pony?" Voters: "Yes please!"
Interviewer: "Would you like a pony from the Labour Party?" Voters: "Ewwwwww!"