On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?
In wet and cold conditions it makes it easier to grip when throwing and also when catching it is just that bit softer.
I wonder how long this little gem will stay in sight before it gets buried?
"A Ukip-branded leaflet has suggested benefit claimants should be banned from driving on UK roads to ease congestion." (Unless it is a spoof of course)
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?
In wet and cold conditions it makes it easier to grip when throwing and also when catching it is just that bit softer.
Thanks!
Apparently the amount that they allegedly were deflated is only very slight, but enough to potentially just give that bit of extra advantage in these conditions.
I would presume though that a ball that has been deflated below the designed pressure probably doesn't fly through the air as far.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
Each team must supply 12 balls two hours 15 minutes before the game, and the referee (in this case Walt Anderson) checks they are between 12.5- 13.5 psi, and puts a stamp on each ball.
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.
I don't really understand why the refs wouldn't provide and look after the balls. In cricket the umpires do, in football the same etc.
And they have many refs in the NFL plus the chain game, you would think between them it would be easy to keep the supply of balls going etc, without any team having their own set.
Splitting an extremely thin hair, there is only one referee. He's the one with the white hat. There is also an Umpire, Head linesman, Line judge, Back judge, Side judge, and Field judge. On TV they are collectively known as the officiating crew. They are graded from their performance and the winners get to officiate the Super Bowl.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
The Guardian is suggesting the tv channels will meet the PM's objection by offering the Greens a place in the debates. He'll need a new excuse! He might start to look silly though.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?
In wet and cold conditions it makes it easier to grip when throwing and also when catching it is just that bit softer.
Thanks!
Apparently the amount that they allegedly were deflated is only very slight, but enough to potentially just give that bit of extra advantage in these conditions.
I would presume though that a ball that has been deflated below the designed pressure probably doesn't fly through the air as far.
The ball - Wilson's "The Duke" - has to be between 12.5-13.5 psi. 11 of the 12 NE balls were 2 psi low. It's easier to throw - can dig your fingers in and get a better grip, and easier to catch.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
Agree - simple, to the point and witty - in contrast to the dull worthy plodding focus grouped mush of the main parties.
I think I'm right in saying that more people have joined the England and Wales Green party in the last week than were members of the party at the time of the last GE.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
Agree - simple, to the point and witty - in contrast to the dull worthy plodding focus grouped mush of the main parties.
Poor Ed, he genuinely stood up to Murdoch but then he participated in that lame photo op and now he looks like all the rest (except for Caroline).
I'm puzzled by this - won't they be spending right up to the legal limit in every marginal constituency anyway?
I know they have less money than the Conservatives nationally and I can understand they wouldn't spend so much in safe or no hope seats. But surely in key marginals they would be spending right up to the limit anyway?
The problem in many seats is the long campaign, i.e. from last month to the end of March. I think you're right that we're all fully funded for the short campaign, but we're being outspent right now with direct mails. I'd guess that Oakeshott has targeted the slightly less marginal seats than Broxtowe since he's aiming for a Lab-Lib majority. We've had a successful local fund-raising drive from small donors (mainly on the back of an "oh look, the Tories are trying to buy you" email - even two Tory voters contributed significant sums to help level the playing field) so I think we'll be reasonably OK anyway.
But I agree with Socrates that more sensible spending limits are really needed. This kind of bsnkroll battle is getting too much like the USA, and it's not as though most voters actually LIKE getting twice as many leaflets and direct mails. My personal view is that more than one letter a month in the long campaign risks being counter-productive - people start to say "aargh it's them again" and chuck it away unread.
The Guardian is suggesting the tv channels will meet the PM's objection by offering the Greens a place in the debates. He'll need a new excuse! He might start to look silly though.
Here's a small example of the kind of impact the Green surge may have. Now there is expected to be a candidate in Berwick Upon Tweed. Ok, probably a Tory gain anyway with Beith standing down but with a Green candidate standing for the first time ever those Tory odds look that bit more attractive now.
The Guardian is suggesting the tv channels will meet the PM's objection by offering the Greens a place in the debates. He'll need a new excuse! He might start to look silly though.
Here's a small example of the kind of impact the Green surge may have. Now there is expected to be a candidate in Berwick Upon Tweed. Ok, probably a Tory gain anyway with Beith standing down but with a Green candidate standing for the first time ever those Tory odds look that bit more attractive now.
Project forward an election or two with Greens and UKIP more firmly established and each good for maybe 50 seats on a good year. You could have the bizarre situation of the CONs not realistically being able to form a government without UKIP, and the LABs likewise without the Greens. Two centrist parties unable to govern without a coalition with another party which is far too extreme for most of their mainstream members and with too many silly policies for the centrist bulk of the public.
I'm puzzled by this - won't they be spending right up to the legal limit in every marginal constituency anyway?
I know they have less money than the Conservatives nationally and I can understand they wouldn't spend so much in safe or no hope seats. But surely in key marginals they would be spending right up to the limit anyway?
The problem in many seats is the long campaign, i.e. from last month to the end of March. I think you're right that we're all fully funded for the short campaign, but we're being outspent right now with direct mails. I'd guess that Oakeshott has targeted the slightly less marginal seats than Broxtowe since he's aiming for a Lab-Lib majority. We've had a successful local fund-raising drive from small donors (mainly on the back of an "oh look, the Tories are trying to buy you" email - even two Tory voters contributed significant sums to help level the playing field) so I think we'll be reasonably OK anyway.
But I agree with Socrates that more sensible spending limits are really needed. This kind of bsnkroll battle is getting too much like the USA, and it's not as though most voters actually LIKE getting twice as many leaflets and direct mails. My personal view is that more than one letter a month in the long campaign risks being counter-productive - people start to say "aargh it's them again" and chuck it away unread.
If UK elections really are going big budget, maybe it's time to change the law and allow political ads on TV, rather than those dreadful ppbs. This would probably reduce the leaflet count too.
Here's a small example of the kind of impact the Green surge may have. Now there is expected to be a candidate in Berwick Upon Tweed. Ok, probably a Tory gain anyway with Beith standing down but with a Green candidate standing for the first time ever those Tory odds look that bit more attractive now.
Was that before or after you knew a Green candidate would stand? I think you're right that it will be close (didnt OGH mention he was backing the Lib Dems here?). My point is that the Green intervention could be particularly important here because of how close it might be.
@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
As predicted last night, Yougov loses Gold Standard in 24 hours.
I know what you mean, but swingback works like this: it's a succession of peaks and troughs, not every day a rise. Given we are now seeing one- and two-point Con leads, it's not difficult to believe swingback is happening. The only question is how far, how fast. OK, that's two questions, but you know what I mean...:-(
THE SNP's record on Health spending & "rationale" for voting on English matters:
The first minister suggested that commercial involvement in English healthcare is inevitably a cover for cuts, and that funding formulas would soon see such cuts extended to Scotland. But neither half of her protestations stand up. Whether or not the New Labour government made a mistake by expanding private provision in the NHS, it did so at the same time as it dramatically increased public funding. As for the alleged link back to Scottish health spending, while total block grants from Whitehall are indeed connected to overall English public service spending, Holyrood has sweeping autonomy over where the money goes. How has this autonomy been used? To institute rather less protection for health within the overall budget than has been provided in England.
The whole argument about health, then, is a flimsy pretext for signalling the SNP’s willingness – eagerness even – to get stuck in to the parliamentary powerplay that will follow the indecisive election that’s now widely predicted for May.
Project forward an election or two with Greens and UKIP more firmly established and each good for maybe 50 seats on a good year. You could have the bizarre situation of the CONs not realistically being able to form a government without UKIP, and the LABs likewise without the Greens. Two centrist parties unable to govern without a coalition with another party which is far too extreme for most of their mainstream members and with too many silly policies for the centrist bulk of the public.
Why couldnt the two centrist parties govern together?
@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
As predicted last night, Yougov loses Gold Standard in 24 hours.
I know what you mean, but swingback works like this: it's a succession of peaks and troughs, not every day a rise. Given we are now seeing one- and two-point Con leads, it's not difficult to believe swingback is happening. The only question is how far, how fast. OK, that's two questions, but you know what I mean...:-(
Compouter2 predicted no Tory poll lead before the GE and used to laugh at posters who correctly predicted it would happen last year.
Project forward an election or two with Greens and UKIP more firmly established and each good for maybe 50 seats on a good year. You could have the bizarre situation of the CONs not realistically being able to form a government without UKIP, and the LABs likewise without the Greens. Two centrist parties unable to govern without a coalition with another party which is far too extreme for most of their mainstream members and with too many silly policies for the centrist bulk of the public.
Why couldnt the two centrist parties govern together?
A Lab-Con Gov't would be far better than being in hock to the communists green party :P
@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
As predicted last night, Yougov loses Gold Standard in 24 hours.
I know what you mean, but swingback works like this: it's a succession of peaks and troughs, not every day a rise. Given we are now seeing one- and two-point Con leads, it's not difficult to believe swingback is happening. The only question is how far, how fast. OK, that's two questions, but you know what I mean...:-(
Compouter2 predicted no Tory poll lead before the GE and used to laugh at posters who correctly predicted it would happen last year.
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
I don't think that Salmond's last ditch demand for a debate with Cameron before the Indy Referendum hurt Cameron or the No campaign either. After Salmond spent the early stages of the Indy debate telling Cameron to butt out of the Scottish affairs, his later demands to debate with him after the SNP White Paper failed to shift the polls really did look like a tribal attempt to shift the issue into a far more negative Scotland vs England issue instead.
I suspect that Cameron's stance about the need to include the Greens in the debates didn't just blunt the Miliband, Farage and Clegg letter which demanded he took part. It also made it look like the main Opposition parties were tribally ganging up on Cameron in a left leaning pincer movement which then left his position of demanding/defending the inclusion of the Greens looking like his way of trying to level the playing field. The fact that Cameron was a key player in making sure that previous Conservative Leadership and PM debates took place further weakens the case of the Opposition and those in the media who now seek to empty chair him. Far too often, the Westminster bubble underestimates either the interest of the electorate in some media dramas generated on twitter or the electorate's sense of fair play when it comes to political debate.
Dave avoiding the debates so far hasn't harmed him - and the issue has been prominent in the news.
Once the campaign starts, if the debates are off it won't be in the news. The media aren't going to keep talking about the issue once it's been resolved - they will talk about the campaigning that is taking place.
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
You are backing at 16.0 or 16-20 (4-5) or ?
Don't back either at 4-5 for sure.
They are fictional examples that I made up to illlustrate the question. If you feel more comfortable answering the question using a real example, then that works too. My question was asking how, if you know the odds on a Labour victory and the odds on a Conservative victory, do you work out the odds on neither a Conservative victory nor a Labour victory?
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Quick question about deriving probabilities from odds. If I have odds on a Labour majority of 16/20, and a Conservative majority of 15/20, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
16-20 (4-5) is an implied probability of 5/(4+5) = 5/9 (55.56%) 15-20 (3-4) is an implied probability of 4/(3+4) = 4/7 (57.14%)
Probability the first wont happen is 4/9 Probability the second wont happen is 3/7
Probability both wont happen is (4x3)/(9*7) = 12/63 = 19.04% = 4.25:1 = 17-4
Since only one event or neither can happen you are betting into a 112% book before NOM or other majority is considered. So the implied probability of NOM is not knowable from this information.
From your answers below I note that my example probabilities were bad ones. If I rephrase the question thus, does this help?
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
From your answers below I note that my example probabilities were bad ones. If I rephrase the question thus, does this help?
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Surely a probability of 1- (1/5) -(1/6) = 1 - (11/30) = 19/30
From your answers below I note that my example probabilities were bad ones. If I rephrase the question thus, does this help?
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Surely a probability of 1- (1/5) -(1/6) = 1 - (11/30) = 19/30
Odds of 11/19.
I'm on my second bottle, mind... (^_-)
OK, so if I understand your answer correctly, the logic goes like this:
QUESTION ====== If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
ANSWER ===== The only three possible outcomes are
a) a Labour majority b) a Conservative majority c) neither of the two,
We know that prob(a) + prob(b) + prob(c) = 1.
Rearranging, we see that prob(c) = 1 - [prob(a) + prob(b)]
Odds on a Labour majority of 4/1 translate as a probability of 1/(4+1) = 1/5 = 0.2 Odds on a Con've majority of 5/1 translate as a probability of 1/(5+1) = 1/6 = 0.17
So prob(a) = 0.2 and prob(b) = 0.16 So prob(c) = 1 - [0.2+0.17] = 1-0.37 = 0.63
A prob of 0.63 = probability of 63/100 = probability of 63/(37+63) = odds of 37/63
So if I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority are 37/63, which is approximately 11/19.
CODA ==== That is very helpful, thank you RodC, and thank you to the others who answered as well
Since only one event or neither can happen you are betting into a 112% book before NOM or other majority is considered. So the implied probability of NOM is not knowable from this information.
All you can work out is that you have bad bets
Unfortunately, as of 2:50am 22nd Jan, the bet365com odds on conservative most seats are 17/20 and labour most seats are 19/20..:-(
This implies that * labour odds = 19/20, so p(labmostseats) = 20/(19+20) = 51.2% * con odds = 17/20, so p(conmostseats) = 20/(17+20) = 54.1%
Since only one event or neither can happen you are betting into a 112% book before NOM or other majority is considered. So the implied probability of NOM is not knowable from this information.
All you can work out is that you have bad bets
Unfortunately, as of 2:50am 22nd Jan, the bet365com odds on conservative most seats are 17/20 and labour most seats are 19/20..:-(
This implies that * labour odds = 19/20, so p(labmostseats) = 20/(19+20) = 51.2% * con odds = 17/20, so p(conmostseats) = 20/(17+20) = 54.1%
So, er...ok, lost now...:-(
Their odds include a profit margin, so they don't reflect the real probability.
From your answers below I note that my example probabilities were bad ones. If I rephrase the question thus, does this help?
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Surely a probability of 1- (1/5) -(1/6) = 1 - (11/30) = 19/30
Odds of 11/19.
I'm on my second bottle, mind... (^_-)
OK, so if I understand your answer correctly, the logic goes like this:
QUESTION ====== If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
ANSWER ===== The only three possible outcomes are
a) a Labour majority b) a Conservative majority c) neither of the two,
We know that prob(a) + prob(b) + prob(c) = 1.
Rearranging, we see that prob(c) = 1 - [prob(a) + prob(b)]
Odds on a Labour majority of 4/1 translate as a probability of 1/(4+1) = 1/5 = 0.2 Odds on a Con've majority of 5/1 translate as a probability of 1/(5+1) = 1/6 = 0.17
So prob(a) = 0.2 and prob(b) = 0.16 So prob(c) = 1 - [0.2+0.17] = 1-0.37 = 0.63
A prob of 0.63 = probability of 63/100 = probability of 63/(37+63) = odds of 37/63
So if I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority are 37/63, which is approximately 11/19.
CODA ==== That is very helpful, thank you RodC, and thank you to the others who answered as well
The sum of the parts will be greater than 1. The "excess" is the bookies profit.
Scottish subsample watch - SNP back to +10 on YouGov......
And government approval back down to -25. I suspect that the previous sample which had it at -18 was unusually pro-Tory and this was is unusually pro-Labour - I don't believe there has been a 7-point approval shift in 24 hours. The safe assumption is probably that the parties are broadly tied, with Labour fractionally ahead.
Scottish subsample watch - SNP back to +10 on YouGov......
And government approval back down to -25. I suspect that the previous sample which had it at -18 was unusually pro-Tory and this was is unusually pro-Labour - I don't believe there has been a 7-point approval shift in 24 hours. The safe assumption is probably that the parties are broadly tied, with Labour fractionally ahead.
Yes, Tory & Labour seem pretty evenly matched - the action appears to be happening with the Lib Dems, Greens & UKIP....
There should be debates. Cameron should be willing to defend his record. The Greens should be treated in the same way as UKIP, and Miliband should have the balls to accept that. There should be two debates, a 5 leader one and a 2 leader one.
If any leader doesn't accept the invitation to an open debate, they should be empty chaired.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
Watch out CR, he will be after your steak (all that nasty red meat) and your packet of jelly babies soon, oh wait, they are already after the jelly babies
Scottish subsample watch - SNP back to +10 on YouGov......
And government approval back down to -25. I suspect that the previous sample which had it at -18 was unusually pro-Tory and this was is unusually pro-Labour - I don't believe there has been a 7-point approval shift in 24 hours. The safe assumption is probably that the parties are broadly tied, with Labour fractionally ahead.
I agree about the indications in respect of the subsamples but I do wonder if Labour are still "fractionally ahead". I think we have now got to the point, on the back of the Green surge, where there is literally nothing in it.
That still does Labour of course but the trend in their own support should worry them.
A High Court judge has ordered the name of a woman sent to prison to be kept from the public – despite rules saying no one should be jailed in secret.
Mrs Justice Roberts defied instructions from Britain’s most senior judges by banning her from being identified.
In May 2013, then Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge and President of the Family Division Sir James Munby declared whenever someone is jailed for contempt they should be publicly named, saying: ‘There are no exceptions.’
Scottish subsample watch - SNP back to +10 on YouGov......
And government approval back down to -25. I suspect that the previous sample which had it at -18 was unusually pro-Tory and this was is unusually pro-Labour - I don't believe there has been a 7-point approval shift in 24 hours. The safe assumption is probably that the parties are broadly tied, with Labour fractionally ahead.
I agree about the indications in respect of the subsamples but I do wonder if Labour are still "fractionally ahead". I think we have now got to the point, on the back of the Green surge, where there is literally nothing in it.
That still does Labour of course but the trend in their own support should worry them.
Labour will form the next government if they can hold on to level-pegging, but their position is perilous, with three separate parties (UKIP, Greens, SNP, eating into their support).
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
Watch out CR, he will be after your steak (all that nasty red meat) and your packet of jelly babies soon, oh wait, they are already after the jelly babies
Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars.
He's too boring to bother debating with. FWIW, I'm not a smoker and detest smoking. But that still doesn't mean I believe in progressively banning it and making smokers lives as miserable as possible.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
Watch out CR, he will be after your steak (all that nasty red meat) and your packet of jelly babies soon, oh wait, they are already after the jelly babies
Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars.
He's too boring to bother debating with. FWIW, I'm not a smoker and detest smoking. But that still doesn't mean I believe in progressively banning it and making smokers lives as miserable as possible.
"Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars."
Don't think so. Most deaths are by major diseases such as cancer, heart etc.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
To me, it's like Page 3. I've no personal axe to grind (I don't smoke or buy the Sun). I just react against the fanaticism of those wanting a ban.
Morning all and surely the big question of the day must be is there any link between the return of a large pair of boobs on page 3 of the Sun and Nigel Farage reportedly asking David Cameron for a Peerage? I can sense Mike K imploding with rage as I type
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
Watch out CR, he will be after your steak (all that nasty red meat) and your packet of jelly babies soon, oh wait, they are already after the jelly babies
Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars.
He's too boring to bother debating with. FWIW, I'm not a smoker and detest smoking. But that still doesn't mean I believe in progressively banning it and making smokers lives as miserable as possible.
"Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars."
Don't think so. Most deaths are by major diseases such as cancer, heart etc.
Road death numbers have been falling, due to increased safety measures.
There should be debates. Cameron should be willing to defend his record. The Greens should be treated in the same way as UKIP, and Miliband should have the balls to accept that. There should be two debates, a 5 leader one and a 2 leader one.
If any leader doesn't accept the invitation to an open debate, they should be empty chaired.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
Agree - simple, to the point and witty - in contrast to the dull worthy plodding focus grouped mush of the main parties.
Poor Ed, he genuinely stood up to Murdoch but then he participated in that lame photo op and now he looks like all the rest (except for Caroline).
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
To me, it's like Page 3. I've no personal axe to grind (I don't smoke or buy the Sun). I just react against the fanaticism of those wanting a ban.
I imagine that is because we are in favor of small governments that do the essentials, and specifically don't meddle in the affairs of consenting private citizens when they do no harm to anyone else, such as in the bedroom, on the news stand, and arguably on the television and the internet. Before the whatabouters jump up, yes, protecting children is a special case, and would still be covered with an intelligent definition of "doing harm".
Last night there was lots of excitement and nanny state allegations over the plain packaging for cigarettes. It turns out the legislation was passed 2 years ago and this announcement is merely that the relevant statutory instrument bringing the law into force is to be promulgated.
Personally I am delighted. I watched the long term effects of cigarette smoking kill my father, my paternal grandparents, my mother's brother and several others in my immediate family. I tried it in the 1970s and didn't like it so never bothered to try again.
As a Tory I recognise the right of each citizen to engage in a fair amount of self abuse but smoking is something which impacts on the health of people who don't smoke but inhale the disgusting by-products. I can detect cigarette smoke at several hundred yards and still find it disgusting.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
To me, it's like Page 3. I've no personal axe to grind (I don't smoke or buy the Sun). I just react against the fanaticism of those wanting a ban.
I actually think the government is right here. I'm not usually one for government meddling, but there's several reasons why I feel it is ok in this case:
1) Smoking is horrifically bad for you. This isn't a mild case of having slightly worse health: it's a 30%-50% chance of killing you.
2) Smoking is highly addictive, which makes the informed consent argument hazy. A lot of people want to quit, but are hooked.
3) And this is the most important one for me: it doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything, or even it make it more difficult. Everyone that wants to smoke still can. It's not adding any additional encumbrance on the user at all - less even than two pence rise in the duty on it. If you can make people have better lives without infringing their liberty, I'm all for it.
It is everywhere: in the mamas and papas scavenging through the rubbish bins, the broken pavements and shuttered shops, the abandoned cars and derelict houses, the new poor who mutter to themselves on graffiti-stained streets. “It is the loss of hope,” he says with a thump of his steering wheel. “I see it every day, a wound that will not heal. Please write that I, Antonis, hate this country, I hate everything about it.”
The Guardian is suggesting the tv channels will meet the PM's objection by offering the Greens a place in the debates. He'll need a new excuse! He might start to look silly though.
As a Tory I recognise the right of each citizen to engage in a fair amount of self abuse but smoking is something which impacts on the health of people who don't smoke but inhale the disgusting by-products. I can detect cigarette smoke at several hundred yards and still find it disgusting.
The byproducts argument is different, you certainly wont find me supporting reintroducing smoking to the workplace, and I am even anti smoking in cars with children, for me the key test is does someone's self harm also harm someone else without their consent. If someone wants to smoke on their own in the garden shed, I would say they are foolish, but once the government starts regulating that sort of stuff, its not that far to the sort of blatant meddling we are starting to see where teachers are being expected to audit children's lunch boxes and write home if its not healthy, and potentially inform social services. Any society that considers a Mars Bar in a lunch box as child abuse has left the path of wisdom, especially when the real thing is happening in our cities, in its mass produced form.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
Www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_82.pdf
Unlike steak or jelly babies, smoking is not possible to combine with a healthy lifestyle.
Smoking kills half of its consumers, and often in middle age. Smoking accounts for half of the difference in mortality by social class, and smokers die a dozen years younger than non-smokers. This much is known for years, but if you look at the more socially deprived members of society (single mothers on benefits 70% smoke, prisoners 80%, homeless 90%) there is constant recruitment of young people to the addiction.
Single mothers on benefits spend about 1/7 of their income on slowly killing themselves. Stopping someone smoking is far more effective than boosting their benefits at improving their life.
Would plain packets help? Possibly so, as it further marginalises smoking as a pastime, and without increasing the financial burden on the consumer. Seems good policy to me.
Would plain packets help? Possibly so, as it further marginalises smoking as a pastime, and without increasing the financial burden on the consumer. Seems good policy to me.
The problem with it is as soon as the government finishes regulating smoking it looks around. Idle civil servants move into job justification mode. Before you know it the next targets, the steak and jellybabies. I intensely dislike granting governments the thin end of wedges.
Results from Australia plain packaging cigarettes 1. Average price paid for cigarettes drops as people less inclined to pay for brand.
But since people are on average paying less they have more disposable income ... to spend on more cigarettes?
2. Consumption in Australia has only dropped slightly - more in line with general downward decline in use.
3. The Australian market is not part of a larger more accessible market such as the UK has with the EC. Illegal sales of branded products from the EC to UK maybe more likely although more identifiable.
Mr. Foxinsox, we'll see whether anti-smokers try to get it banned in public. And then it won't be the choice of smokers.
As for the poor making bad decisions, if there's a (surprising) lack of knowledge about smoking I agree that should be rectified so informed decisions can be made. Beyond that, it's their business.
I wonder whether now the attention will shift to trying to ban smoking in public.
That's the first time I've heard that suggested - has the no smoking in cars with children thing been passed yet? What I think are more likely possibilities are:
(a) Something - be it tax or regulation - on added sugar in food.
(b) A stricter drink-driving limit. My memory is hazy on the details but I think a limit of 50 (in whatever units) compared to the current 80 has been campaigned for.
You can see the arguments in favour - at the population level making these sorts of changes, as with the previous changes to discourage smoking, end up saving loads of lives - but where do you draw the line? I'd be dusting down the Molotov cocktails if it looked like they were going after alcohol in the same way as they've done for tobacco.
Also, given your previous comments about the health effects of inactivity, you could make similar population health arguments in favour of compulsory physical exercise, but instinctively people are much more anti being compelled to do something, rather than prevented from doing something.
Oh dear, what a shame. Most of us can live this, as its a good thing.
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
I've known people who've died from drinking too much. Should we hide alcohol behind a counter, and wrap it in plain packaging? Playing rugby and boxing can be very dangerous too. Best to ban them, to be on the safe side.
We are the Government. We can't do much, but we must be seen to do something. This is something, therefore we must do it.
To me, it's like Page 3. I've no personal axe to grind (I don't smoke or buy the Sun). I just react against the fanaticism of those wanting a ban.
It is everywhere: in the mamas and papas scavenging through the rubbish bins, the broken pavements and shuttered shops, the abandoned cars and derelict houses, the new poor who mutter to themselves on graffiti-stained streets. “It is the loss of hope,” he says with a thump of his steering wheel. “I see it every day, a wound that will not heal. Please write that I, Antonis, hate this country, I hate everything about it.”
Comments
"A Ukip-branded leaflet has suggested benefit claimants should be banned from driving on UK roads to ease congestion."
(Unless it is a spoof of course)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/21/benefit-claimants-cars-buses-ukip-leaflet
I would presume though that a ball that has been deflated below the designed pressure probably doesn't fly through the air as far.
The more this gets retweeted the better. Kind of you to help, MikeK. I also liked the one showing all the other party leaders endorsing the Sun's "England" front page contrasted with Caroline Lucas in a "no page 3" tshirt. The folks in the Green party press office are having a good week.
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/558046059256356867?s=09
It does show who is the real alternative to Man in a Suit sucking up to the Murdoch press.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/21/green-party-election-leader-debates-nigel-farage
Spoof IDS account?
The affair is being called 'deflate-gate',
Agree - simple, to the point and witty - in contrast to the dull worthy plodding focus grouped mush of the main parties.
Poor Ed, he genuinely stood up to Murdoch but then he participated in that lame photo op and now he looks like all the rest (except for Caroline).
But I agree with Socrates that more sensible spending limits are really needed. This kind of bsnkroll battle is getting too much like the USA, and it's not as though most voters actually LIKE getting twice as many leaflets and direct mails. My personal view is that more than one letter a month in the long campaign risks being counter-productive - people start to say "aargh it's them again" and chuck it away unread.
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-news/all-news/election-berwick-greens-make-progress-1-3666913#.VMBIg49NCNk.twitter
The first minister suggested that commercial involvement in English healthcare is inevitably a cover for cuts, and that funding formulas would soon see such cuts extended to Scotland. But neither half of her protestations stand up. Whether or not the New Labour government made a mistake by expanding private provision in the NHS, it did so at the same time as it dramatically increased public funding. As for the alleged link back to Scottish health spending, while total block grants from Whitehall are indeed connected to overall English public service spending, Holyrood has sweeping autonomy over where the money goes. How has this autonomy been used? To institute rather less protection for health within the overall budget than has been provided in England.
The whole argument about health, then, is a flimsy pretext for signalling the SNP’s willingness – eagerness even – to get stuck in to the parliamentary powerplay that will follow the indecisive election that’s now widely predicted for May.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/21/guardian-view-snp-westminster-nicola-sturgeon-flexes-muscles
Don't back either at 4-5 for sure.
I suspect that Cameron's stance about the need to include the Greens in the debates didn't just blunt the Miliband, Farage and Clegg letter which demanded he took part. It also made it look like the main Opposition parties were tribally ganging up on Cameron in a left leaning pincer movement which then left his position of demanding/defending the inclusion of the Greens looking like his way of trying to level the playing field. The fact that Cameron was a key player in making sure that previous Conservative Leadership and PM debates took place further weakens the case of the Opposition and those in the media who now seek to empty chair him. Far too often, the Westminster bubble underestimates either the interest of the electorate in some media dramas generated on twitter or the electorate's sense of fair play when it comes to political debate.
Odds of 8/55...
I blame the wine if this is wrong!
15-20 (3-4) is an implied probability of 4/(3+4) = 4/7 (57.14%)
Probability the first wont happen is 4/9
Probability the second wont happen is 3/7
Probability both wont happen is (4x3)/(9*7) = 12/63 = 19.04% = 4.25:1 = 17-4
I think
Time for bed, obviously.
15/20 = 3-4 = 1.75 1/1.75 = 57.5%
Since only one event or neither can happen you are betting into a 112% book before NOM or other majority is considered. So the implied probability of NOM is not knowable from this information.
All you can work out is that you have bad bets
From your answers below I note that my example probabilities were bad ones. If I rephrase the question thus, does this help?
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
Odds of 11/19.
I'm on my second bottle, mind... (^_-)
QUESTION
======
If I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then what is the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority?
ANSWER
=====
The only three possible outcomes are
a) a Labour majority
b) a Conservative majority
c) neither of the two,
We know that prob(a) + prob(b) + prob(c) = 1.
Rearranging, we see that prob(c) = 1 - [prob(a) + prob(b)]
Odds on a Labour majority of 4/1 translate as a probability of 1/(4+1) = 1/5 = 0.2
Odds on a Con've majority of 5/1 translate as a probability of 1/(5+1) = 1/6 = 0.17
So prob(a) = 0.2 and prob(b) = 0.16
So prob(c) = 1 - [0.2+0.17] = 1-0.37 = 0.63
A prob of 0.63 = probability of 63/100 = probability of 63/(37+63) = odds of 37/63
So if I have odds on a Labour majority of 4/1, and a Conservative majority of 5/1, then the odds/probability of neither a Conservative majority nor a Labour majority are 37/63, which is approximately 11/19.
CODA
====
That is very helpful, thank you RodC, and thank you to the others who answered as well
This implies that
* labour odds = 19/20, so p(labmostseats) = 20/(19+20) = 51.2%
* con odds = 17/20, so p(conmostseats) = 20/(17+20) = 54.1%
So, er...ok, lost now...:-(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30926973
But, one can't help but wonder when some of our esteemed regular posters actually get some sleep!
I know too many people who have died, or are dying of smoking related diseases, and the more we can do to discourage others from smoking the better.
'Farage, Englishmans right, pint and a fag, blah, blah, blah'. Whatever.
If any leader doesn't accept the invitation to an open debate, they should be empty chaired.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sugar-reduction-responding-to-the-challenge
Most deaths are from road accidents, must be time to ban cars.
That still does Labour of course but the trend in their own support should worry them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920899/Judge-defines-rules-jailing-woman-contempt-court-secret-naming-lead-daughter-identified.html
Yes, that's why the poll tax was introduced across the UK at the same time
Don't think so. Most deaths are by major diseases such as cancer, heart etc.
All the rest are also leader of their party
Personally I am delighted. I watched the long term effects of cigarette smoking kill my father, my paternal grandparents, my mother's brother and several others in my immediate family. I tried it in the 1970s and didn't like it so never bothered to try again.
As a Tory I recognise the right of each citizen to engage in a fair amount of self abuse but smoking is something which impacts on the health of people who don't smoke but inhale the disgusting by-products. I can detect cigarette smoke at several hundred yards and still find it disgusting.
1) Smoking is horrifically bad for you. This isn't a mild case of having slightly worse health: it's a 30%-50% chance of killing you.
2) Smoking is highly addictive, which makes the informed consent argument hazy. A lot of people want to quit, but are hooked.
3) And this is the most important one for me: it doesn't actually prevent anyone from doing anything, or even it make it more difficult. Everyone that wants to smoke still can. It's not adding any additional encumbrance on the user at all - less even than two pence rise in the duty on it. If you can make people have better lives without infringing their liberty, I'm all for it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/-sp-greek-elections-five-years-like-patient-slowly-bleeding
I wonder whether now the attention will shift to trying to ban smoking in public.
Mr. Indigo, it'll be interesting to see how the Greeks vote, and the impact of their decision.
Unlike steak or jelly babies, smoking is not possible to combine with a healthy lifestyle.
Smoking kills half of its consumers, and often in middle age. Smoking accounts for half of the difference in mortality by social class, and smokers die a dozen years younger than non-smokers. This much is known for years, but if you look at the more socially deprived members of society (single mothers on benefits 70% smoke, prisoners 80%, homeless 90%) there is constant recruitment of young people to the addiction.
Single mothers on benefits spend about 1/7 of their income on slowly killing themselves. Stopping someone smoking is far more effective than boosting their benefits at improving their life.
Would plain packets help? Possibly so, as it further marginalises smoking as a pastime, and without increasing the financial burden on the consumer. Seems good policy to me.
We should also consider why so many of the poor make such bad decisions, and what the alternatives are.
The world's most powerful oompa-loompa has also called into question the German Grand Prix:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9655205/bernie-ecclestone-says-german-gp-not-certain-to-take-place-in-2015
And Force India have unveiled their car livery:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12477/9655052/force-india-have-revealed-their-new-look-livery-for-2015-at-a-ceremony-in-mexico
Got to say, I rather like it.
1. Average price paid for cigarettes drops as people less inclined to pay for brand.
But since people are on average paying less they have more disposable income ... to spend on more cigarettes?
2. Consumption in Australia has only dropped slightly - more in line with general downward decline in use.
3. The Australian market is not part of a larger more accessible market such as the UK has with the EC. Illegal sales of branded products from the EC to UK maybe more likely although more identifiable.
As for the poor making bad decisions, if there's a (surprising) lack of knowledge about smoking I agree that should be rectified so informed decisions can be made. Beyond that, it's their business.
(a) Something - be it tax or regulation - on added sugar in food.
(b) A stricter drink-driving limit. My memory is hazy on the details but I think a limit of 50 (in whatever units) compared to the current 80 has been campaigned for.
You can see the arguments in favour - at the population level making these sorts of changes, as with the previous changes to discourage smoking, end up saving loads of lives - but where do you draw the line? I'd be dusting down the Molotov cocktails if it looked like they were going after alcohol in the same way as they've done for tobacco.
Also, given your previous comments about the health effects of inactivity, you could make similar population health arguments in favour of compulsory physical exercise, but instinctively people are much more anti being compelled to do something, rather than prevented from doing something.