politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lifting the Margin of Error Safety Blanket
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lifting the Margin of Error Safety Blanket
“All changes are within the margin of error”. It’s a frequently heard line, usually trotted out by those sympathetic to a party whose share has just declined, or by those keen to fence-sit. While it may be true (and it usually is:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-2014-mid-season-review.html
The most interesting part of writing it was perhaps considering the potential changes to driver lineups next year. Could see many changes.
On-topic: It could yet be turned around. I don't think it will be, but it's not impossible.
Pre GE 2015 i expect main 2 parties membership to rise
Anthony Wells' rolling average does much the same thing, as does the Kalman filter approach that Rod Crosby first introduced on here.
I can see that the No camp now have their tails up, while there is potential for real division in the Yes camp.
The betting opportunities look to be in the % bands.
@SeanF
You made a comment that the problem is that the right is split, and noted that 46% (I think) of current polling is for rightist parties (UKIP+Tory) vs. 40% at the last election.
It struck me that there is a fundamental difference between UKIP and Tory positions - and I am not sure that they fit on the same spectrum.
It comes down to the question: "what do you mean by Conservatism?"
For me - and I do hail from the Whiggish/Liberal Unionist strain in the party - the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism.* Thus, in the 19th century, Conservatives opposed classic Liberalism, favouring social reform / regulation and controls (e.g. Shaftsbury's Factory Acts, Wilberforce's Slavery Act), but in the 20th century they opposed the execessive regulation and controls favoured by Socialism.
I'd have thought this could be an interesting thread - "What is Conservativism" - happy to volunteer to have a stab if people think it would lead to a good discussion
* copied from wiki, but not going to source it right now.
There are people who are prepared to vote UKIP who would never vote Conservative, and of course vice versa.
The point about "plan B" is that (1) the SNP are asking for independence and therefore they are the ones that need to set out their various plans, and (2) the lack of a plan B has (at this point) fried the chances of a Yes vote winning.
The No camp can ride this one out, it is Yes that needs to respond.
"I'd have thought this could be an interesting thread - "What is Conservativism" - happy to volunteer to have a stab if people think it would lead to a good discussion "
I think that would make a very interesting discussion. Whether PB is the right place for it, I am not so sure.
I don't think we really know where UKIP will end up yet - there are several distinct strands that are barely compatible with each other, and one may eventually dominate it, though you could say the same about the other parties too.
It seems as if the Yes camp has a degree of division on the issue.
I sense the knives are out for smoked Salmond.
@Taffys
"Farage has been pretty quiet on the big foreign policy issues of the day - Gaza, Israel and Iraq.
I guess he doesn;t really need to say anything."
yup. the cost/benefit of balkanization is all over the news. doesn't need to say a word.
"I don't think we really know where UKIP will end up yet - there are several distinct strands that are barely compatible with each other, and one may eventually dominate it, though you could say the same about the other parties too."
You most certainly could say the same about all political parties. The Labour Party of the early eighties was pushing a very different message from that of the late nineties, which itself is different from that which Labour seem to be trying to push in 2014. Yet I don't suppose your personal values or views have shifted much at all.
Your ability to post any kind of viable response is.
DYOR.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11022763/We-cannot-be-silent-in-the-face-of-the-slaughter-in-Iraq.html
Speak out against ISIL and religious persecution, but don't attack ISIL. Words mean nothing if they are not backed up by action Dougie. Labour are despicably targeting/courting the Muslim vote by not publicly backing air strikes against ISIL. Absolutely disgusting, and IOS proved on the last thread that it is a distinct policy given that he thinks the Tories should listen to Warsi so they can also court the Muslim vote.
Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful from Labour. Completely and utterly cynical from them to not support the air strikes. Dave needs to go all in and call his bluff. Call an emergency session about the plight of the Yazidis and Christian minorities and get air strikes though Parliament. Ed will have to show his hand then, no more mealy mouthed crap about "speaking out". Support it and stop courting the Muslim vote or oppose them and show that Labour don't actually care about these minorities and it's all lip-service because the bloc vote of Muslims is more important for 2015. If Labour support air strikes on ISIL in Parliament it risks splitting the Muslim vote with Respect ready and waiting, Dave needs to call his bluff, not just for political reasons but because ISIL needs to be pushed back so the Iraqi minorities can be protected from their evil. It is the right thing to do and Dave is weak.
Does your trolling contract with the rich fat couple expire on the 18th ?
The facts, as from the Survation poll, are that the Scottish electorate don't believe Salmond knew what he was talking about whereas Darling did. Given that the currency question basically comes down to assertions rather than evidence ('yes they will' / 'no they won't'), credibility is absolutely critical - and the Yes side is lacking.
Still, keep playing the man. I'm sure such an aggressive stance will win over waverers. Not.
Trouble was he didn't say the slaughter would be Salmond at the hands of Darling, LOL!
Could you really make a proposal this critical without consensus in the government / breaking the Coalition?
Fools are easily amused
There is no fundamental difference between UKIP and the Conservatives on policy -the difference is one of conviction.
Humanitarian aid to the refugees, and perhaps some asylum but bombing is not in our capabilities.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/from-jerusalem-a-desperate-yazidi-father-pleads-for-help/
Interesting story here.
You are obviously much amused. Salmond was well and truly duffed up. I know it, the SNP(as a whole) know it, the media know it.
You are in denial, as you will remain right up to the vote.
There can be no Plan B for Better Together. If the referendum is lost, all is over for it.
http://www.thelocal.de/20140807/echoes-of-iraq-conflict-on-streets-of-herford-yezidi-islamic-state
I still think it's a useful piece but it's one that could have gone up any time and Mike was right to reschedule it for a quieter moment.
This sort of action is what drones were made for. No one wants ISIS to get their hands on a downed pilot.
Is the idea that a prime minister should actually have principles and values that he or she is prepared to articulate and stand by, even if it means losing the baubles of office, really so out of date?
I must admit my main thought for weeks has been to slip Pre-slammed into PB - Obi-Wan in the White House after all!!!
Much apologies to all.
The fact is, America has utterly failed to help Iraq turn the tide against ISIS up to now -not even honouring its contract to supply Iraq with pre-ordered F-16s. However, now ISIS have attacked the Kurdish Pershmaga, threatening the US' planned independent Kurdish state, suddenly they're acutely interested in protecting Christians. It's abominable cynicism.
http://nsnbc.me/2014/08/09/u-s-airstrikes-against-is-in-iraq-part-of-war-on-baghdad/
I agree that the Government should say up and say what they believe in, even if it means a defeat in the Commons.
I'm not sure that it would be right for Cameron to do so independent of Cabinet.
Hence my point about breaking the Coalition - I could be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, but I think it is inappropriate for Cameron to act independently
I'd suggest
1) humanitarian air drop option (which requires making sure the RAF have sufficient Hercules equivalents and air-refuelling ability to make it look substantial)
2) if air strikes then insist on ground spotting as apart from the moral issue killing the wrong people is effectively the same as killing your own people but with a revenge time lag
The French and US already have air assets in Jordan.
Syria's air defence system has more holes in it than you can count and has done for about 18-24 months. There would be little issue in Western airforces if they really had to go that way but its a last resort.
Drones are designed to operate in non permissive environments but have severe limitations, not least weapons load. The environment is largely permissive and requires a heavier loiter and strike load if its going to be done right.
Don't forget they captured a lot of modern US stuff from the Iraqi army. I don't know if that included SAMs or not. It shouldn't matter as they shouldn't know how to use them but if they're actually being led by [blank] special forces then they will.
The problem isn't battlefield and force disposition intelligence. The problem is that the warnings were ignored by the politicians.
http://www.govtoday.co.uk/environment/34-biodiversity/13281-painted-lady-migration-secrets-revealed#.UH_jiF7j8b8.facebook
I would be very happy for the ISIS fighters to be destroyed, but that will take more than a few long range bombing forays.
ISIS are only going to be defeated if they lose their powerbase in East Syria (which probably means assisting Assad get it back) and with the Kurds taking Mosul and vicinity.
We should provide humanitarian aid, and perhaps accept refugees for permanent settlement, particularly the persecuted religious minorities.
Kurds in a technical or Isis in a technical - easy for a drone to tell apart?
edit: If you have ground spotters and just take out heavy weapons out in the open then you can shift the odds without killing loads of people whose grandkids blow up a plane in 20 years time.
If possible, I'd have no qualms about bombing ISIS as much as possible. Not only would it save lives and kill some of the worst people imaginable, it'd also be in our long term strategic interest. If the Caliphate took over Syria and Iraq they'd surely have their eye on Lebanon and Jordan.
Contrary to what seems to be popular perception brought about by a few photos on the Internet of ISIS controlled Humvees, the Iraqi army still uses considerable amounts of ex-Soviet heavy kit that was holdover from the Saddam era or bought in because it was compatible with those previous stocks.
As regards how you get the refugees back home, there are already counter offensive moves underway under the cloak of US air support to regain this territory.
The other thing that few seem aware of is that ISIS are now engaged in conventional manouvere warfare and they are stretched in terms of occupying the space gained. Therefore front lines are still fluid and gains tenuous within much of Kurdistan. Thus the time to counter is now.
Are Labour and the Lib Dems really going to say that we should do nothing to help people such as the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians because Muslims here would be upset at the thought that we're trying to stop barbarism by their co-religionists against such people? Are they really prepared to turn a blind eye to such crimes if it helps get the votes of people who either see nothing wrong with this behaviour or aren't too fussed because it's happening to non-Muslims or (some of them) are happy to go out and join them?
We are seeing the reality of what an Islamic state looks like and what it does and I do not want any political party here courting the votes of people who support such barbaric behaviour. I certainly would never vote for such a party.
*Not saying we should've, merely that we could've.
**I am aware the recent history of Western intervention in the Middle East has not been an unmitigated success.
But the issue is the LibDems - you've seen Clegg's weasel words already, and there is a strong "Ward" tendency within the party as well.
I know you shouldn't think about matters in these terms, but it would be interesting to see what a split on war/peace would do - could it enable the LibDems to reclaim the anti-Iraq vote from Labour - or force Ed Miliband to take an anti-war position? (which might actually be popular)
The kurds now have a road link to these people, but where do they go now?
The whole region is increasingly unsafe. A million Iraqi Christians have left in the last decade or so, mostly to Syria and Lebanon.
Sure but do the RAF.
IOS stated on the previous thread that the Tories need to get real on winning minority votes which means following Warsi's words of backing off on anti-extremist rhetoric and withdrawing unqualified support of Israel. Something Labour have already done.
Spot on. Muslims are well-known for their love of bacon and other pork-based products.
Sorry - I'm not great at high politics.
In fact - I'm not sure if they ever really touched on it at the OU. Leftie bastards - keeping me in ignorance.