Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Why Labour’s chances of winning a majority are more than 50% – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,916
edited October 2023 in General
imageWhy Labour’s chances of winning a majority are more than 50% – politicalbetting.com

Will Labour win a majority at the next election? One potential barrier that has been much cited here is the party’s poor performance in 2019, which means that it faces a steep climb to win a majority. But others have argued that we should be thinking of its challenge not in terms of the additional seats it needs to gain, but the absolute number of seats it needs to win (326, although de facto fewer).

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667
    Second....like Roumania, Japan and Australia in todays RWC matches
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 667
    RWC predictions...
    The South Africa Romania match will be very one sided, with South Africa putting 60+pts on Romania.
    The England Japan game will not be as easy - Japan will put up a tougher fight and should play some good rugby - but expect England to wear them down - and I am going to make a bold prediction now.....England will score one or more tries!! England by 20.
    The Australia Fiji game will be close. Fiji have already shown what they can do and they will have a point to prove. Australia will have a game plan but Fiji dont care...Fiji by 6!! (Which will throw this group wide open and make bonus points essential).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    Very good piece OLB and it is a pleasure to publish it.

    I like the analysis, too.
    And not because of its prediction.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Finally read David Ignatius’ “Biden shouldn’t run” column. Nothing-burger. And his line on Harris—“she has failed to gain traction in the country”—is just dumb. Compared to which thrilling beloved VP: Pence, Biden, Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush 1, Mondale, Rockefeller, Ford, Agnew?
    https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1703110905821602277
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,157
    Great stuff OLB. I'm looking forward to everyone else's take on the analysis. Good motivation to do a little revision too.

    I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023
    What a great thread OLB.

    I hope that's not because I like the outcome but because I really admire the well-argued alternative angle.

    Superb 👏 👏 👏
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited September 2023
    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    Very good piece OLB and it is a pleasure to publish it.

    Yes, a very interesting approach.

    The prospect of Sunaks favourability rating improving looks slim indeed.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,457
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    You do have to wonder what the fuck it's got to do with any of them.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Will peruse the F1 markets shortly, after checking whether Verstappen got a (deserved) penalty for impeding Tsunoda yesterday.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    edited September 2023

    Good morning, everyone.

    Will peruse the F1 markets shortly, after checking whether Verstappen got a (deserved) penalty for impeding Tsunoda yesterday.

    Of course he didn’t get a penalty. Tsunoda’s team didn’t even turn up to the hearing.
    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2023 Singapore Grand Prix - Infringement - Car 1 - Impeding of Car 22.pdf
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Will peruse the F1 markets shortly, after checking whether Verstappen got a (deserved) penalty for impeding Tsunoda yesterday.

    Of course he didn’t get a penalty. Tsunoda’s team didn’t even turn up to the hearing.
    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2023 Singapore Grand Prix - Infringement - Car 1 - Impeding of Car 22.pdf
    That’s a shame. If he’d started stone last it might have made the race vaguely interesting.
  • Options
    Mr. Sandpit, well, that'll teach me to take commentator's seriously.

    F1: weighing up whether to bet now or wait and see if the group markets show up. I quite like those, surprised they aren't up already.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714

    Mr. Sandpit, well, that'll teach me to take commentator's seriously.

    F1: weighing up whether to bet now or wait and see if the group markets show up. I quite like those, surprised they aren't up already.

    Lay Ferrari. You just know they’ll pit the lap before the safety car, and take a couple of seconds longer than usual to complete the stop.
  • Options
    Mr. Sandpit, ha, my comments already include suspicions of Ferrari snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That said, Leclerc to win each way at 7 is appealing.

    That, and Verstappen/Perez to not be classified at 6 each. The car looked a handful in qualifying.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,523
    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023
    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
  • Options
    Betting Post

    F1: decided to back Leclerc each way at 7.5 for the win. The top three were super close, and Leclerc tends to excel at street circuits.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/09/singapore-pre-race-2023.html
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
  • Options
    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    The irony of the Republicans pursuing Biden with largely baseless legal claims for political advantage, while railing loudly against Trump being pursued for treason, tax fraud and sexual assault just because he's done all those things and alleging political interference in the justice system, should be delicious.

    Unfortunately it is rather lost on the American electorate.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    You do have to wonder what the fuck it's got to do with any of them.
    Or indeed the Russian invasion ?
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Great stuff OLB. I'm looking forward to everyone else's take on the analysis. Good motivation to do a little revision too.

    I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?

    When I ran the regression relative net favourabillity had the best in sample predictive power. I think that is logical. You have four seperate metrics (favourability and unfavourability for each leader) and it makes sense to use all that information. At the same time, you only have a small number of observations to it's sensible to combine them in one variable rather than throwing them in seperately and over-fitting the relationship.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    Hmmm.

    If he wins (oooh, look at that flying pig) will Hamilton then take legal action over 2021 to try to get back to 7 titles?

    Edit - there is of course another albeit rather tangential link - Piquet is Verstappen's father in law.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    US journalism.
    This is a network reporter.

    https://twitter.com/jparkABC/status/1703167768843968906
    As President Biden left church, I shouted quite loudly across the cemetery, “Mr. President, will you pardon your son?!” But Biden did not visibly react or acknowledge the question.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
    Most of them are so awful it probably doesn't cross their minds.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    The irony of the Republicans pursuing Biden with largely baseless legal claims for political advantage, while railing loudly against Trump being pursued for treason, tax fraud and sexual assault just because he's done all those things and alleging political interference in the justice system, should be delicious.

    Unfortunately it is rather lost on the American electorate.
    Curiously, it seems also to be lost on most of the 'liberal media'.
  • Options
    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    Has Roger offered his thoughts on this yet?

    I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    Nigelb said:

    US journalism.
    This is a network reporter.

    https://twitter.com/jparkABC/status/1703167768843968906
    As President Biden left church, I shouted quite loudly across the cemetery, “Mr. President, will you pardon your son?!” But Biden did not visibly react or acknowledge the question.

    Note that Biden is already on record, repeatedly, saying that he would not.

    There is no 'will' since his son is yet to be tried.
  • Options
    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
  • Options

    Very good piece OLB and it is a pleasure to publish it.

    Thank you very much for publishing it.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,739
    edited September 2023
    'Morning PB campers, or members of the great PB Salon, drinkers at the great Platonic Symposium of Smithson.

    Russell Brand is a very interesting case, having moved from the populist left substantially to the farright. He illustrates how disconnection is channelled these days into ideas like the Great Reset, first promoted by the US billionnaires' favourite the Heartland Institute, or more understandable suspicion of governments, into outright vaccine denialism, and fears of technocratic and bio-medical control.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635
    Thanks for an interesting analysis, but obviously the choice of X is rather crucial.

    I'd say a more natural choice in terms of the "seats won" school of thought is simply the difference between the voting intention figures for the two main parties.

    It would be interesting to see the results of a similar analysis with that choice instead of X being based on leadership satisfaction.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,620
    edited September 2023
    Interesting thread, but I think the statistical methodology is questionable, for a number of reasons. Eleven is an extremely small sample, and I would use VI not leader approval, as the former is a better predictor of the general election result. In addition, there is likely to be some omitted variable bias, since many have observed that voters tend to punish parties that have been in power for a decade or more. Adding a dummy variable for the number of elections previously won could affect the results significantly. Fourthly, there is very likely to be multicollinearity between the two explanatory variables. Multicollinearity invalidates regression analysis, and it is likely to be a particular problem this time. The opposition leader's popularity, and the unpopularity of the current government, could affect their score last time, particularly if they are the same people. A standard part of regression analysis is to test for this, e.g. using VIFs. Finally, I don't agree that a crucial battleground like Scotland should be omitted since so much of Labour's hopes rest there. Since it performed much more like the rest of the UK pre-2015, perhaps a dummy variable should be included?

    I think the best way to test for any "mountain to climb" effect is to look at a seat level, rather than nationally. Is the swing towards Labour greater in seats it already holds? If so, then holding more seats will be an advantage. This also has the merit of having a more than sufficient sample size. I vaguely recall some analysis that showed a small effect for seats held for the first time, but no effect beyond that. But at some point I might have a go myself.

    Anyway, it is an interesting and important question, and, despite disagreeing with the methodology, I think the conclusion is highly plausible.
  • Options

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    It's quite interesting for a number of reasons. If Renault were thrown out of the Singapore race and Alonso dq'ed, then Hamilton actually gets *more* points. What Massa's team want is for the entire race to be voided, which means that Hamilton 'loses' the points from that race, and Massa wins the championship.

    AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.

    It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.

    On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.

    If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    From my new favourite Twitter follow..

    Yakisupa-man, a smiling superhero whose fried spaghetti brains are being eaten, is the mascot of Nogata City.
    https://twitter.com/mondomascots/status/1701600554747834373
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,159

    Eabhal said:

    Great stuff OLB. I'm looking forward to everyone else's take on the analysis. Good motivation to do a little revision too.

    I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?

    When I ran the regression relative net favourabillity had the best in sample predictive power. I think that is logical. You have four seperate metrics (favourability and unfavourability for each leader) and it makes sense to use all that information. At the same time, you only have a small number of observations to it's sensible to combine them in one variable rather than throwing them in seperately and over-fitting the relationship.
    Might I suggest you do what 538 do when modelling US election results: include economic confidence as a predictor.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    .

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    It's quite interesting for a number of reasons. If Renault were thrown out of the Singapore race and Alonso dq'ed, then Hamilton actually gets *more* points. What Massa's team want is for the entire race to be voided, which means that Hamilton 'loses' the points from that race, and Massa wins the championship.

    AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.

    It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.

    On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.

    If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
    Will anyone think more highly of Massa as a result of this - even in the extremely unlikely event of his succeeding in court ?
  • Options

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    Has Roger offered his thoughts on this yet?

    I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
    Brand is 'talent', and therefore any woman not wanting to be abused by him should just go and become hairdressers...

    It's sad that lots of people still have such a mindset.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    Eabhal said:

    Great stuff OLB. I'm looking forward to everyone else's take on the analysis. Good motivation to do a little revision too.

    I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?

    When I ran the regression relative net favourabillity had the best in sample predictive power. I think that is logical. You have four seperate metrics (favourability and unfavourability for each leader) and it makes sense to use all that information. At the same time, you only have a small number of observations to it's sensible to combine them in one variable rather than throwing them in seperately and over-fitting the relationship.
    Might I suggest you do what 538 do when modelling US election results: include economic confidence as a predictor.
    Apart from their annus mirabilis, have 538 had any particularly great success in their political forecasting ?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,523
    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Possibly, and my suggestion is almost a conspiracy theory itself. But if you were going to be faced with these kinds of accusations would you rather have built up a fanbase with George Monbiot (who nominated Brand as his hero of the year in 2014) in it, or with Elon Musk in it?

    Here's Monbiot from earlier this year on Brand's descent into 'rightwing' idiocy, speculating that Brand is saying what his audience wants to hear.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility

    But also contains the line:

    "While I’m not suggesting this is his purpose, it’s a tactic used deliberately by powerful people to disarm those who might otherwise hold them to account."

    But maybe it kind of is Brand's purpose, he's no doubt known for a while these accusations were coming.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    Has Roger offered his thoughts on this yet?

    I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
    Brand is 'talent', and therefore any woman not wanting to be abused by him should just go and become hairdressers...

    On the basis that he clearly never goes anywhere near a hairdresser ?

  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    .

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    It's quite interesting for a number of reasons. If Renault were thrown out of the Singapore race and Alonso dq'ed, then Hamilton actually gets *more* points. What Massa's team want is for the entire race to be voided, which means that Hamilton 'loses' the points from that race, and Massa wins the championship.

    AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.

    It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.

    On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.

    If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
    Will anyone think more highly of Massa as a result of this - even in the extremely unlikely event of his succeeding in court ?
    I really doubt it. And as someone said on YT; the buzz from being driver's champion happens *when* you win; not fifteen years later.

    In ye olden days, F1 and the FIA would be very vengeful about anyone bringing such a claim. It'll be interesting to see how the modern F1 reacts.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,474
    edited September 2023
    Heathener said:

    What a great thread OLB.

    I hope that's not because I like the outcome but because I really admire the well-argued alternative angle.

    Superb 👏 👏 👏

    You only like it because you are blind to anything bar people who agree with you that Labour are wonderful and will win big. History teaches us to be more careful with predictions.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    Has Roger offered his thoughts on this yet?

    I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
    Brand is 'talent', and therefore any woman not wanting to be abused by him should just go and become hairdressers...

    On the basis that he clearly never goes anywhere near a hairdresser ?
    I reckon that 'look' is very carefully manicured. It takes skill and time to look that unruly...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023

    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
    I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?

    In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.

    When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.

    What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).

    There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.

    The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.

    *Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,015
    Interesting rumours Kadyrov (Putins Chechen ally) has died..

    That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    Interesting rumours Kadyrov (Putins Chechen ally) has died..

    That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.

    It's a narrow window of opportunity.

    Who's going to go through it?
  • Options
    Mr. Doethur, it was Piquet Junior, so the brother of Verstappen's girlfriend (wife? I don't pay attention to personal stuff). Also, yes, Mercedes will be looking at 2021 action if the 2008 legal bid works out for Massa.
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,871

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    Has Roger offered his thoughts on this yet?

    I won’t feel entirely comfortable following my leanings against Brand until Roger has defended him
    Brand is 'talent', and therefore any woman not wanting to be abused by him should just go and become hairdressers...

    It's sad that lots of people still have such a mindset.
    Brand´s contempt for women is matched only by his contempt for democracy. A sleazeball at every level. One can only hope that he faces maximal justice and departs from the public realm as fast as possible,
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    Mr. Doethur, it was Piquet Junior, so the brother of Verstappen's girlfriend (wife? I don't pay attention to personal stuff). Also, yes, Mercedes will be looking at 2021 action if the 2008 legal bid works out for Massa.

    Ah yes, my mistake. Generational divide...
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Congrats on the debut piece @OnlyLivingBoy - first of many, I hope.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    Reports today labour will allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Good idea or simple electoral manipulation to their advantage ?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023
    Taz said:

    Reports today labour will allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Good idea or simple electoral manipulation to their advantage ?

    All changes to the franchise are done for electoral advantage, whether they are good ideas or not.

    There is I suppose a possible exception in the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, but even then Joynson-Hicks had considerable cover from Central Office who were finding much more enthusiasm for the Tories among women than among men.

    Edit - the irony is it is normal for any change to the franchise to be followed by a defeat at the following election. 1868, 1885 (sort of) 1929 and 1970. I will admit 1832 and 1918 as dazzling exceptions.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    ydoethur said:

    Interesting rumours Kadyrov (Putins Chechen ally) has died..

    That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.

    It's a narrow window of opportunity.

    Who's going to go through it?
    I suspect that rumour may end up shot down in flames.
  • Options
    A 290 to 340 seat range for Labour is about right in my view.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Sandpit, well, that'll teach me to take commentator's seriously.

    F1: weighing up whether to bet now or wait and see if the group markets show up. I quite like those, surprised they aren't up already.

    Lay Ferrari. You just know they’ll pit the lap before the safety car, and take a couple of seconds longer than usual to complete the stop.
    There's a monsoon somewhere in the world, so they will switch Charles to full wets. And park him in front of Carlos Sainz whilst failing to get the tyres out of the blankets.

    Fozza have gone through a succession of team bosses. Blamed various people. Started new era after new era. And their basic stupidity remains.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Interesting rumours Kadyrov (Putins Chechen ally) has died..

    That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.

    Didn’t he just have an opponent buried alive? You can quibble with the methods, but they get results out there.
  • Options
    Well done @OnlyLivingBoy on a debut piece!

    Bit early in day for me to take in the maths, but it looks an interesting theory.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Sandpit, well, that'll teach me to take commentator's seriously.

    F1: weighing up whether to bet now or wait and see if the group markets show up. I quite like those, surprised they aren't up already.

    Lay Ferrari. You just know they’ll pit the lap before the safety car, and take a couple of seconds longer than usual to complete the stop.
    There's a monsoon somewhere in the world, so they will switch Charles to full wets. And park him in front of Carlos Sainz whilst failing to get the tyres out of the blankets.

    Fozza have gone through a succession of team bosses. Blamed various people. Started new era after new era. And their basic stupidity remains.
    They are definitely F1's answer to the DfE.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    Nigelb said:

    From my new favourite Twitter follow..

    Yakisupa-man, a smiling superhero whose fried spaghetti brains are being eaten, is the mascot of Nogata City.
    https://twitter.com/mondomascots/status/1701600554747834373

    I wonder if they have done Kingsley?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36686461

    To add to the incongruity, this is *Partick Thistle* - a bit like being savaged by a miniature sheep,
  • Options
    Bravo for a model that passes the "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" test, and a solid Centrist Dad answer to the "mountain to climb" question. Starting on 375ish in the notionals helps the Conservatives a bit, but not that much. Fifteen seats or so?

    The other important thing is that this isn't really about whether Labour are well regarded, it's about how poorly Johnson, Truss and Sunak have all been viewed. It's the lot of Prime Ministers to lose gloss as time goes on; heck, it's what happens to most of us most of the time. But none of them started with much in the first place. And I don't see who is out there who could do transformatively better for the blue team.
  • Options

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    It's quite interesting for a number of reasons. If Renault were thrown out of the Singapore race and Alonso dq'ed, then Hamilton actually gets *more* points. What Massa's team want is for the entire race to be voided, which means that Hamilton 'loses' the points from that race, and Massa wins the championship.

    AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.

    It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.

    On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.

    If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
    I have to conclude that Massa has turned into some kind of bitter man, brooding over His title which was Stolen from him.

    Renault cheated, not McLaren. Races are not linear events - remove event x and it isn't guaranteed that y and z occur. The challenge is absurd.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Reports today labour will allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Good idea or simple electoral manipulation to their advantage ?

    All changes to the franchise are done for electoral advantage, whether they are good ideas or not.

    There is I suppose a possible exception in the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, but even then Joynson-Hicks had considerable cover from Central Office who were finding much more enthusiasm for the Tories among women than among men.

    Edit - the irony is it is normal for any change to the franchise to be followed by a defeat at the following election. 1868, 1885 (sort of) 1929 and 1970. I will admit 1832 and 1918 as dazzling exceptions.
    Noting also that voter ID is a great example self-administered foot-shooting in terms of fiddling with the franchise for supposed benefit.

    FWIW the answer to Taz’s question is yes to both.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 5,016
    Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
    I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?

    In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.

    When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.

    What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).

    There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.

    The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.

    *Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
    On Teesside there were an awful lot of Labour voters who went Tory. I witnessed some brilliant doorstep altercations where Corbynite activists went into meltdown when He was given as a principle reason why LLLLLLL voters were going Tory.

    It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,523
    kamski said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Possibly, and my suggestion is almost a conspiracy theory itself. But if you were going to be faced with these kinds of accusations would you rather have built up a fanbase with George Monbiot (who nominated Brand as his hero of the year in 2014) in it, or with Elon Musk in it?

    Here's Monbiot from earlier this year on Brand's descent into 'rightwing' idiocy, speculating that Brand is saying what his audience wants to hear.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility

    But also contains the line:

    "While I’m not suggesting this is his purpose, it’s a tactic used deliberately by powerful people to disarm those who might otherwise hold them to account."

    But maybe it kind of is Brand's purpose, he's no doubt known for a while these accusations were coming.
    Though he apparently said in 2014 that he was 'open minded' on who was behind 9/11 so maybe we're back to the simple 'idiot' theory.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    F1: Massa has started legal action to overturn the 2008 result. He lost the title to Hamilton by a point, but would've won it had it not been for Singapore, in which Piquet deliberately crashed, eventually leading to massa going from leading to not scoring at the race.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/66824529

    It's quite interesting for a number of reasons. If Renault were thrown out of the Singapore race and Alonso dq'ed, then Hamilton actually gets *more* points. What Massa's team want is for the entire race to be voided, which means that Hamilton 'loses' the points from that race, and Massa wins the championship.

    AFAIAA there is no precedent for a race being voided because one team cheated; only for teams and/or drivers to be dq'ed. It also seems rather unfair to the entire grid for an entire race weekend to be voided because one team cheated. I therefore think his team has a fair bit of work to do.

    It would also set a load of precedents, as the good doctor said below, Hamilton in 2021 being a classic example.

    On another point, Massa went from the leading the race to the back of the pack because he and Ferrari mucked up their pitstop in quite a hilarious manner, not because of the crash itself = although the pitstop occurred because the safety car after the crash gave them an opportunity. So it is not as if the crash took Massa out, either.

    If F1 are forced to void Singapore 2008, I can see them looking back to the 2008 Belgian grand prix and saying: "Oh, we mucked up when we gave Hamilton a 25-second penalty. He can have that win." Hence handing Hammy the title over Massa...
    I have to conclude that Massa has turned into some kind of bitter man, brooding over His title which was Stolen from him.

    Renault cheated, not McLaren. Races are not linear events - remove event x and it isn't guaranteed that y and z occur. The challenge is absurd.
    He'd still have won if he hadn't messed up the pit stop.

    But in this case, the specific allegation seems to be that new allegations have emerged the race director knew about Piquet's cheating in advance and not only failed to stop it but helped cover it up. Which would cast doubt on the validity of the race as a whole.

    My personal view is that's very improbable. It isn't however entirely out of the question.

    I also think that if Massa had won the title as a result he'd have taken damn good care that no evidence casting doubt on the integrity of the race would ever emerge...
  • Options
    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    Interesting about the loan from Obama - but I thought that senior US politicians (Congress, Senate, President etc) get a deluxe health care plan for free. AKA Socialised Medicine - which the Republican hypocrites just luuuurve to use.

    Or am I wrong?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    edited September 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    Interesting about the loan from Obama - but I thought that senior US politicians (Congress, Senate, President etc) get a deluxe health care plan for free. AKA Socialised Medicine - which the Republican hypocrites just luuuurve to use.

    Or am I wrong?
    I don't think that extends to adult family members.

    Edit - incidentally the loan was offered but not in the end taken.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/joe-biden-barack-obama-money-house-beau-family
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    edited September 2023
    Ghedebrav said:

    Interesting rumours Kadyrov (Putins Chechen ally) has died..

    That could prompt interesting changes to the landscape.

    Didn’t he just have an opponent buried alive? You can quibble with the methods, but they get results out there.
    His doctor, it is claimed. Perhaps not the best plan.


  • Options
    Good morning

    A very interesting piece and I think the conclusion is highly likely

    Whilst @OnlyLivingBoy and I do not have the same political outlook I want to congratulate him on his piece

    Starmer is heading into no 10 unless something totally unexpected happens and I have accepted that, and indeed the conservative party needs a time in opposition to come to their senses, or not
  • Options
    The Russell Brand story is as unsurprising as Boris Johnson breaking lockdown rules.
  • Options
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Possibly, and my suggestion is almost a conspiracy theory itself. But if you were going to be faced with these kinds of accusations would you rather have built up a fanbase with George Monbiot (who nominated Brand as his hero of the year in 2014) in it, or with Elon Musk in it?

    Here's Monbiot from earlier this year on Brand's descent into 'rightwing' idiocy, speculating that Brand is saying what his audience wants to hear.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility

    But also contains the line:

    "While I’m not suggesting this is his purpose, it’s a tactic used deliberately by powerful people to disarm those who might otherwise hold them to account."

    But maybe it kind of is Brand's purpose, he's no doubt known for a while these accusations were coming.
    Though he apparently said in 2014 that he was 'open minded' on who was behind 9/11 so maybe we're back to the simple 'idiot' theory.
    Or possibly Brand suspected it was not Iraq and Afghanistan behind 9/11?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,868
    edited September 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    Interesting about the loan from Obama - but I thought that senior US politicians (Congress, Senate, President etc) get a deluxe health care plan for free. AKA Socialised Medicine - which the Republican hypocrites just luuuurve to use.

    Or am I wrong?
    I did not recall the story correctly.
    https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/joe-biden-barack-obama-money-house-beau-family

    Nonetheless it doesn't speak of Biden being wealthy at the time.
    His millions (relatively meagre by Washington standards) were earned after he was VP.
  • Options

    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats

    Another way of looking at it...

    340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.

    If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
  • Options

    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats

    A Labour majority of that kind of size feels like a given. For it to go bigger, various things need to be considered:
    1 Is the much-discussed disgust and disdain for the Tories enough to swing seats to them in shire towns? Winning much of the red wall back is in the given category, but how about beyond that?
    2 Are Tory voters in the mood to repeat 1997 and simply not vote? Labour's landslide was as much about the collapse in the Tory vote as it was Blair's popularity
    3 Is the SNP problem enough to spin traditional Labour voters back to them after a near decade voting for Indy?
    4 Will Labour and the LibDems be grown up enough to co-operate? If MidBeds squabbling means a Tory vote collapse still scrapes home, they need their heads examining.

    Labour's basic issue is that it needs to win back the red wall, win over Scottish new nats and English blue wallers. And you can't possibly find a formula which does that. Hence Starmer going frit.

    The idiocy is that despite Blair being in charge, the Blair formula isn't being resurrected. Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime was inspired. A crackdown on petty crime and lawlessness to keep that demographic happy, a push to remove squalor and desperation and addiction which fuels so much crime.

    Where is Starmer's formulation of the same?
  • Options
    Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
    I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?

    In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.

    When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.

    What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).

    There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.

    The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.

    *Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
    On Teesside there were an awful lot of Labour voters who went Tory. I witnessed some brilliant doorstep altercations where Corbynite activists went into meltdown when He was given as a principle reason why LLLLLLL voters were going Tory.

    It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
    Yeah, Redcar must be desperate to get London based Lawyer Anna Turley back in as MP.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    edited September 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I have never seen the right-wing and/or Russian propaganda networks go as hard in on rewriting history as I am seeing this past week with Shokin.

    Jon Solomon and the Murdoch rags are leading the charge, providing every possible out-of-context fact that they can spin their way.

    https://twitter.com/thomasafine/status/1703189985619308845

    Right wing media attempting to rewrite history.
    Again.

    The allegations about Biden over Ukraine are built on a pile of lies. But so frequently repeated that it's hard even to search for the truth online.

    Try finding this story from 2019, without already knowing it exists, for example.

    This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense
    It wasn’t just Biden who wanted reform in the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office. Republican senators did, too.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson
    On the other hand, try finding this story from 2019 without already knowing it exists:
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/
    Biden Inc.
    Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.”

    Also a load of shit.
    Biden had to borrow money from Obama to pay for his son's cancer treatment, rather than sell his house.
    Since being VP, he has earned a not unusual amount of money for the books and speeches.

    The allegations of financial corruption are utterly baseless. The GOP have been investigating him for five years, and have nothing but smears.

    The 'impeachment enquiry' is a pathetically transparent political hit job.

    Can you point to anything of substance ?
    Interesting about the loan from Obama - but I thought that senior US politicians (Congress, Senate, President etc) get a deluxe health care plan for free. AKA Socialised Medicine - which the Republican hypocrites just luuuurve to use.

    Or am I wrong?
    I did not recall the story correctly.
    https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/joe-biden-barack-obama-money-house-beau-family

    Nonetheless it doesn't speak of Biden being wealthy at the time.
    His millions (relatively meagre by Washington standards) were earned after he was VP.
    IIRC the gold plated health plan the politicians - and their immediate family - is for life, like the pensions. Serve one term in Congress and you are in.

    So next time you see a US politician railing against universal healthcare…
  • Options

    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats

    Another way of looking at it...

    340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.

    If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
    I think SNP and LD will get closer to 30 than 40. If 30 each then it's about 230 for CON.

    As a CON I think I would take that, certainly 250. Time to sit in the opposition for a while and develop new sensible proper CON policies.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014

    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats

    Another way of looking at it...

    340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.

    If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
    Isn't 340 Labour based on around 20 gains from the SNP though? Which would take them back into the 20s.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    darkage said:

    Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.

    Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694
    edited September 2023

    I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.

    This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:

    No one likes CON or Rishi anymore

    There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB

    But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats

    Another way of looking at it...

    340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.

    If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
    Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/17/american-xl-bully-dog-ban-may-be-ineffective-in-short-term-uk-experts-warn

    Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,014
    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.

    Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
    Could have been worse. Could have been thrown to the Milwall.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,694

    Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?

    We're too old?
  • Options
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
    I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?

    In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.

    When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.

    What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).

    There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.

    The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.

    *Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
    On Teesside there were an awful lot of Labour voters who went Tory. I witnessed some brilliant doorstep altercations where Corbynite activists went into meltdown when He was given as a principle reason why LLLLLLL voters were going Tory.

    It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
    Yeah, Redcar must be desperate to get London based Lawyer Anna Turley back in as MP.
    I'm not convinced CON will hold Redcar. However Watford did win yesterday so anything is possible! 👍
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556

    Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?

    He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.

    The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
    One day the penny might drop:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/17/populist-leaders-bad-for-economy-but-hard-habit-to-break
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    edited September 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.

    Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
    Could have been worse. Could have been thrown to the Milwall.
    No one likes them and they don’t care.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric

    Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.

    There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
    I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?

    In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.

    When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.

    What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).

    There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.

    The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.

    *Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
    On Teesside there were an awful lot of Labour voters who went Tory. I witnessed some brilliant doorstep altercations where Corbynite activists went into meltdown when He was given as a principle reason why LLLLLLL voters were going Tory.

    It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
    Yeah, Redcar must be desperate to get London based Lawyer Anna Turley back in as MP.
    London based? She has been campaigning in Redcar almost constantly since she lost. Running a local foodbank and a poverty charity.

    I can't see Jacob Young young deploying "I'm local me, and she is from London: and succeeding. What has he done, other than get ignored by "Lord" Houchen and the developers.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    ydoethur said:

    kamski said:

    So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?

    I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.

    But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
    Possibly, and my suggestion is almost a conspiracy theory itself. But if you were going to be faced with these kinds of accusations would you rather have built up a fanbase with George Monbiot (who nominated Brand as his hero of the year in 2014) in it, or with Elon Musk in it?

    Here's Monbiot from earlier this year on Brand's descent into 'rightwing' idiocy, speculating that Brand is saying what his audience wants to hear.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility

    But also contains the line:

    "While I’m not suggesting this is his purpose, it’s a tactic used deliberately by powerful people to disarm those who might otherwise hold them to account."

    But maybe it kind of is Brand's purpose, he's no doubt known for a while these accusations were coming.
    Though he apparently said in 2014 that he was 'open minded' on who was behind 9/11 so maybe we're back to the simple 'idiot' theory.
    Semi-pointless anecdote, but years ago as a v junior and inconsequential marketing drone I was at a publishing do where Brand was also attending, in advance of his first autobiography coming out (this was around 2008 I think).

    Struck me as an unfunny diva-ish peacock who was simply fortunate in his outlook and style being very much in line with the Vice-esque edgy hipster aesthetic that was the style at the time (and interesting also how Vice from that time was also a hotbed of exploitation and abuse - there was quite a lot of culturally-sanctioned nastiness around at that time, and in retrospect the trajectory McInnes went on after isn’t actually that surprising). Also striking was the coterie of fawning lackeys around him.

    At the same do Al Murray was also in attendance and can happily confirm that he was a very pleasant, intelligent and engaging man with no airs. Chatted to him for a long while about the brilliance of The Sopranos.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 1,011
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Reports today labour will allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Good idea or simple electoral manipulation to their advantage ?

    All changes to the franchise are done for electoral advantage, whether they are good ideas or not.

    There is I suppose a possible exception in the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, but even then Joynson-Hicks had considerable cover from Central Office who were finding much more enthusiasm for the Tories among women than among men.

    Edit - the irony is it is normal for any change to the franchise to be followed by a defeat at the following election. 1868, 1885 (sort of) 1929 and 1970. I will admit 1832 and 1918 as dazzling exceptions.
    Isn't it the case that fiddling with the franchise to try and get more of "your" voters added is mostly likely to be done by administrations which think they are going down? If you're wildly popular and have a 80 seat majority, there's no great pressure to find a few thousand more votes, whilst if you're about to lose, straws tend to get clutched.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,739
    edited September 2023
    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.

    Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
    But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.

    I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
This discussion has been closed.