politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson: Tom Watson should be odds-on for LAB deputy

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson: Tom Watson should be odds-on for LAB deputy

I recently explained why I think Andy Burnham shouldn’t be priced as the odds on favourite for the Labour leadership contest. Looking at the Deputy race, I think the opposite is the case and that the current favourite Tom Watson should in fact be a good deal shorter.

Read the full story here

TGOHF

So for the record the Henry G trifecta is : Cooper/Watson/Khan ?

TheWhiteRabbit

Curse of the PB thread: Watson cut to evens on Ladbrokes!

Cyclefree

Tom Watson: yuk!

Henry Manson may well be right but this seems to me to be Labour going back to the G Brown era.

rcs1000

@Plato

Re Hotblack Desiato. The estate agent came first, and Douglas Adams thought it would be a brilliant name for a rock star. Of course: now people assume that the estate agent stole the name from Hitchiker's.

rcs1000

Cyclefree said:

Tom Watson: yuk!

Henry Manson may well be right but this seems to me to be Labour going back to the G Brown era.

A few of my friends know Tom Watson, and they speak very highly of him (as a human being, rather than as a politician).

Pulpstar

£6.67 allowed on at Hills @ 6-4 ^_~

SandyRentool

As with the leadership, I want to see as many candidates on the ballot as possible. Come on PLP - share your nominations round to give the members a choice. Remember, we are the ones who give up our time to get you elected.

NickPalmer

As a former MP (who can reasonably be assumed to know a lot of members) I've heard from Watson, Healey and Creasy - no other deputy candidates have bothered, and locally we've heard most from Creasy. Watson is the long-standing familiar candidate, though, and I'm not surprised he's ahead on nominations. I also think that the 35 threshold is a challenge for most of the others, but the low number of nominations in total shows a lot of scope for a surge. If Creasy gets on the ballot (there will be grumbles from many of us if she isn't, as Danny565 said), I'd see her as the narrow favourite as the freshest face who members have actually heard good stuff about. I agree Watson and Flint are the favourites otherwise.

A complication is that the deadline for nomination is deliberately 2 days after the leader deadline - that means that e.g. Creagh could try to fall back on this if she *narrowly* misses the leader total. Some MPs may hold back on nominations to the last moment with that in mind.

FrancisUrquhart

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

MTimT

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

Ghedebrav

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Tom Watson: yuk!

Henry Manson may well be right but this seems to me to be Labour going back to the G Brown era.

A few of my friends know Tom Watson, and they speak very highly of him (as a human being, rather than as a politician).

Won't help Labour much in the Murdoch press though.

watford30

This article's worth a read in view of the thread header.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10162301/Tom-Watson-my-part-in-his-downfall.html

Philip_Thompson

Burnham/Watson or Cooper/Watson.

Well that will motivate the Tories to vote again in 2020. Yuk!

TheWhiteRabbit

Ali 10
Bradshaw 13
Creasy 10
Eagle 10
Flint 32
Healey 18
Watson 50

People themselves 7 (can you nominate another?)

Total 150
Uncommitted 83

Looks like max 4 on the ballot.

Ghedebrav

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Plato

After all that Xbox chat https://twitter.com/botzarelli/status/607039147946176512

Bob__Sykes

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

Ghedebrav

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

john_zims

@Cyclefree

'Henry Manson may well be right but this seems to me to be Labour going back to the G Brown era.'

Spot on, far too much baggage from the Brown era and a reminder of the plotting and back-stabbing that went with it.

SquareRoot

Was Watson friends with McBride?

Oh...


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/11/damian-mcbride-forced-to-quit

Plato

Watson makes Balls look appealing. Repellent throwback.

john_zims said:

@Cyclefree

'Henry Manson may well be right but this seems to me to be Labour going back to the G Brown era.'

Spot on, far too much baggage from the Brown era and a reminder of the plotting and back-stabbing that went with it.

JosiasJessop

Watson helped mortally wound Scottish Labour with the Falkirk scandal.

Imagine what he would do as deputy of the whole party?

Burnham and Watson: the Conservative party's wet dream combination. In that they pee themselves laughing ...

Plato

Yup

JosiasJessop said:

Watson helped mortally wound Scottish Labour with the Falkirk scandal.

Imagine what he would do as deputy of the whole party?

Burnham and Watson: the Conservative party's wet dream combination. In that they pee themselves laughing ...

Flightpathl

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

The man who made a 200 mile detour to deliver a christmas present to the Brown's coincidentally on the same weekend as a plot to replace Blair, with Brown. He is normal all right.

SquareRoot

Wasn't it Watson who made the excuse of delivering xmas presents to Brown's kids at the time of the coup..

SimonStClare

SquareRoot said:

Wasn't it Watson who made the excuse of delivering xmas presents to Brown's kids at the time of the coup..

Indeed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/11/uk.labourleadership3

Ghedebrav

Flightpathl said:

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

The man who made a 200 mile detour to deliver a christmas present to the Brown's coincidentally on the same weekend as a plot to replace Blair, with Brown. He is normal all right.

I'm talking about perception not reality.

Plato

McBride, Draper, Watson, Balls and Brown. Birds of a feather.

Flightpathl said:

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

The man who made a 200 mile detour to deliver a christmas present to the Brown's coincidentally on the same weekend as a plot to replace Blair, with Brown. He is normal all right.

Bob__Sykes

Compelling reading in The Times today, as they start their in depth reporting on Labour's defeat. All the big names have been interviewed and many setting out in no uncertain times what went wrong (thank god they didn't have the courage to do so before the GE!)

Although it repeats some of what was in The Guardian last week, there are some great snippets, some of which put Ed Balls in a more favourable light, apparently being "the bulwark against stupid ideas" (staggering really given what did get through!).

I like the fact that David Miliband apparently called Ed at home 30 mins before polls closed "to congratulate him on his campaign" (LOL!), the fact that the EdStone (which will be talked about long after we've all forgotten about Sheffield 1992) was originally going to be carved into a quarry face no less, and that a photocall with Ed in front of Brighton Pavillion was hastily pulled when aides fretted that voters might think he was stood outside a mosque.

Also, that the curtains in No 10 literally were being measured up - civil servants were already in discussions with Labour about refurbishments before polling day.

All good stuff....

SquareRoot

Ghedebrav said:

Flightpathl said:

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

The man who made a 200 mile detour to deliver a christmas present to the Brown's coincidentally on the same weekend as a plot to replace Blair, with Brown. He is normal all right.

I'm talking about perception not reality.

Most sane people think Watson is a s***, and they wouldn't be wrong either, whatever he may have done since.

JosiasJessop

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

I'm hardly a 'dedicated right-winger', but I detest the guy. He's one of the people who sums up everything that is wrong with some parts of Labour and parts of other parties too.

Falkirk and his hideous behaviour and self-aggrandisement over Murdoch are just two examples.

Still, we'd better be careful due to his rather thin skin and speed to threaten libel lawyers. It's amazing how often bullies hate criticism ...

Richard_Nabavi

Bob__Sykes said:

Although it repeats some of what was in The Guardian last week, there are some great snippets, some of which put Ed Balls in a more favourable light, apparently being "the bulwark against stupid ideas" (staggering really given what did get through!).

I'm not at all surprised - Ed Balls was easily the most sensible of the shadow front-bench, and if there was one faint reason to hope that a Labour government might not have turned out to be quite as disastrous as Ed Miliband's speeches suggested, it was the fact that Ed Balls was likely to be Chancellor. In fact Balls scarcely bothered to hide his contempt for his boss.

Labour should have chosen Balls as leader in 2010. Instead they seem set on progressing from the third-worst of the five 2010 contenders to the second-worst. Perhaps they'll get round to Diane Abbott in the end.

NeilVW

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Newspapers: I read the DM and Graun online, the latter more than the former plus I comment sometimes on CiF. I buy (occasionally) The Times in print, I look at the DT whenever it's lying around. I count myself a Times Reader.

Plus am an, um, true blue Cons.

On TVs - may I be the first to ask: what is a 4k TV?

Basically a Ultra High Definition TV. About 4 times better picture quality than a normal HD TV


http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/televisions/article/advice/what-is-4k-tv

Define "four times better"!

The marginal improvement is insignificant.

It is literally four times the pixels. The change from traditional SDTV to HDTV was four times, which is the same as from HDTV to UHD.

Yes and to your eyes looks just the same

I can most definitely tell the difference (just can't currently afford it). It depends on the size of the screen but the bigger the screen the more noticeable the difference.

My Laptop I'm typing on now is 1920x1080 (the same resolution as full HDTV), there's no reason a 50" TV can't have a higher resolution than a Laptop.

I din't mean than 4k couldn't be a small improvement, but there's no way your viewing experience will be anything like 4 times better.

I agree that four times better is an overstatement (as it was for HDTV), but it will be better. Its an understatement to say you can't see the difference.

I'm looking forward to 4k gaming though I suspect we'll need to wait for PS5 or PS6 to make the most of it. By which point at this rate we could be talking about 16k TVs and so it goes on!

I believe 4k is at the limit of human visual acuity; any more pixels and we would need new eyes, as someone suggested.

MarqueeMark

These Labour elections just keep getting better and better for the Tories. Watson, eh? I thought when you had three wishes from a genie, you weren't allowed to have as your third wish "I wish I had unlimited additional wishes". I may have been misinformed. The wishes keep coming good.

At PMQ's, Labour seemed to be an Opposition without any fight in them. No righteous indignation of the horrors this Tory majority will visit on the poor, the sick, the unfortunate, the unlucky among us.

Just a party who have been kicked hard in the nuts by the election result.

Danny565

Richard_Nabavi said:

Labour should have chosen Balls as leader in 2010. Instead they seem set on progressing from the third-worst of the five 2010 contenders to the second-worst. Perhaps they'll get round to Diane Abbott in the end.

In terms of their pitches in the 2010 contest, Balls was arguably the most left-wing of all the candidates (though he did abandon that a few years later).

TGOHF

MarqueeMark said:

These Labour elections just keep getting better and better for the Tories. Watson, eh? I thought when you had three wishes from a genie, you weren't allowed to have as your third wish "I wish I had unlimited additional wishes". I may have been misinformed. The wishes keep coming good.

At PMQ's, Labour seemed to be an Opposition without any fight in them. No righteous indignation of the horrors this Tory majority will visit on the poor, the sick, the unfortunate, the unlucky among us.

Just a party who have been kicked hard in the nuts by the election result.

The penny seems to be dropping that the Blair years were simply a blip in a slow march to the history books.

Bob__Sykes

MarqueeMark said:

These Labour elections just keep getting better and better for the Tories. Watson, eh? I thought when you had three wishes from a genie, you weren't allowed to have as your third wish "I wish I had unlimited additional wishes". I may have been misinformed. The wishes keep coming good.

At PMQ's, Labour seemed to be an Opposition without any fight in them. No righteous indignation of the horrors this Tory majority will visit on the poor, the sick, the unfortunate, the unlucky among us.

Just a party who have been kicked hard in the nuts by the election result.

I've actually only now read Henry's piece (sorry Henry!). I didn't realise Watson was such a shoo-in.

Blimey, you can't credit that after what has happened (twice) they are going for "third time lucky" by pitching to voters in 2020 with (presumably) the left-leaning "oldish" Labour concoction of Burnham and Watson, whom I imagine may pile on votes in seats Labour already holds with big majorities (the "urban shitholes" as they are often referred to), whilst proving utterly repellant if not outwardly toxic everywhere else, notably in the south.

Hopefully a decent Tory alternative to Dave or George might emerge by 2018/19 - because at the moment, you'd have to be thinking about an increased Tory majority if this comes to pass!

Ghedebrav

SquareRoot said:

Ghedebrav said:

Flightpathl said:

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

Ghedebrav said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Labour want to convince the public they have changed, the last thing they want to do is have Tom Watson in a senior position.

I think he comes across pretty well TBH. He talks like a normal person. It's only dedicated right-wingers who loathe him.

The man who made a 200 mile detour to deliver a christmas present to the Brown's coincidentally on the same weekend as a plot to replace Blair, with Brown. He is normal all right.

I'm talking about perception not reality.

Most sane people think Watson is a s***, and they wouldn't be wrong either, whatever he may have done since.

Most sane people have never heard of him.

TheWhiteRabbit

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

dr_spyn

twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/608628750859796480

Must be mischief making by The Times and @TSE - Labour's backdrop is The Brighton Pavilion.

From the Times, superb work on the shambles that was Ed. this story about immigration sums it up. "There was an at times almost comical neurosis about the issue: in a moment straight out of The Thick of It, a planned photo call with the leader in front of the Brighton Pavilion was dropped because an aide feared voters might think it was a mosque."

What a foul up.

TheWhiteRabbit

Actually that leads me to another question: do leadership candidates endorse deputy leadership candidates?

As pointed out if the leadership candidates aren't well-known the deputy leadership ones are practically unheard of, unless you comment on a political blog regularly.

Scott_P

Sorry Nick... (and assorted Scottish whingers)

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/608629600046874624

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

Sorry Nick... (and assorted Scottish whingers)

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/608629600046874624

Hope that isn't a Scottish pavement - how dare an "English" MP stand on a Scottish pavement - it's a clear betrayal of the vow and grounds for a new referendum !

williamglenn

Bob__Sykes said:

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

In Flint's case I doubt it (she's older than she looks). She does look like by far the best candidate for deputy though.

Scott_P

TGOHF said:

Hope that isn't a Scottish pavement - how dare an "English" MP stand on a Scottish pavement - it's a clear betrayal of the vow and grounds for a new referendum !

She is apparently making a ministerial visit to Aberdeen soon.

Presumably after the outrage today, Holyrood will withhold her visa...

DavidL

The way Labour doing this is nuts. Surely, if they are to be of any use, the deputy and the leader must be on at least speaking terms with each other. If not the deputy simply becomes a distinct power base within the party and a source of dissent and confusion.

Of course Mr Watson is an incredibly nice chap who can work with anyone and would never dream of dripping uncomplimentary remarks about a colleague in the ears of a helpful journalist. Well, anyone except the last leader of the Labour party. Nice though he is, what is the point of making him deputy if Kendall was made leader and could not stand him (entirely hypothetical of course)?

The only sensible way to do this, as I have said before, is to have joint tickets leading to a unified leadership. Teams work: Cameron and Osborne, Blair and Brown, Maggie and Whitelaw. Split leadership such as Labour had under Ed does not.

grahambc1

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

This was my thinking, Watson might not be such a shoo in if a male wins the leadership. I am a supporter of Burnham/Watson partnership but understandably many in Labour would prefer a woman on the leadership team. In that eventuallity I think some votes will shift from Watson perhaps to Eagle.

My personal solution long term would be two deputies

williamglenn

grahambc1 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

This was my thinking, Watson might not be such a shoo in if a male wins the leadership. I am a supporter of Burnham/Watson partnership but understandably many in Labour would prefer a woman on the leadership team. In that eventuallity I think some votes will shift from Watson perhaps to Eagle.

My personal solution long term would be two deputies

The Tories are hoping you have influence.

Have you considered the attractions of a rotating deputy leadership? Let everyone have a chance.

logical_song

Bob__Sykes said:

Compelling reading in The Times today, as they start their in depth reporting on Labour's defeat. All the big names have been interviewed and many setting out in no uncertain times what went wrong (thank god they didn't have the courage to do so before the GE!)

Although it repeats some of what was in The Guardian last week, there are some great snippets, some of which put Ed Balls in a more favourable light, apparently being "the bulwark against stupid ideas" (staggering really given what did get through!).

I like the fact that David Miliband apparently called Ed at home 30 mins before polls closed "to congratulate him on his campaign" (LOL!), the fact that the EdStone (which will be talked about long after we've all forgotten about Sheffield 1992) was originally going to be carved into a quarry face no less, and that a photocall with Ed in front of Brighton Pavillion was hastily pulled when aides fretted that voters might think he was stood outside a mosque.

Also, that the curtains in No 10 literally were being measured up - civil servants were already in discussions with Labour about refurbishments before polling day.

All good stuff....

Brighton Pavilion does look a bit 'foreign', but surely Westminster Cathedral looks even less like a mosque:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/-sp-ukip-mistakes-westminster-cathedral-for-mosque

TheWhiteRabbit

grahambc1 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

This was my thinking, Watson might not be such a shoo in if a male wins the leadership. I am a supporter of Burnham/Watson partnership but understandably many in Labour would prefer a woman on the leadership team. In that eventuallity I think some votes will shift from Watson perhaps to Eagle.

My personal solution long term would be two deputies

Eagle would need to make the ballot first.

They really haven't got a system likely to produce a woman in the top two roles.

AndreaParma_82

yes, Flint was born in 1961. So she will be 59 in 2020

williamglenn said:

Bob__Sykes said:

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

In Flint's case I doubt it (she's older than she looks). She does look like by far the best candidate for deputy though.

DavidL

AndreaParma_82 said:

yes, Flint was born in 1961. So she will be 59 in 2020

williamglenn said:

Bob__Sykes said:

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

In Flint's case I doubt it (she's older than she looks). She does look like by far the best candidate for deputy though.

So was I but I am sure I will be much younger than that!

AndreaParma_82

yesterday I miscounted Eagle's total...I misplaced her nominators starting from the wrong excel cell. Therefore I thought she was at 20....12 (now 13) is low.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

I see Toad of Toad Hall might be parping merrily once more. Shame.

Bob__Sykes

williamglenn said:

grahambc1 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

This was my thinking, Watson might not be such a shoo in if a male wins the leadership. I am a supporter of Burnham/Watson partnership but understandably many in Labour would prefer a woman on the leadership team. In that eventuallity I think some votes will shift from Watson perhaps to Eagle.

My personal solution long term would be two deputies

The Tories are hoping you have influence.

Have you considered the attractions of a rotating deputy leadership? Let everyone have a chance.

They could have guest leaders like the guest presenters on HIGNFY!

williamglenn said:

Bob__Sykes said:

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

In Flint's case I doubt it (she's older than she looks). She does look like by far the best candidate for deputy though.

She never seems to age. Hard to believe she'll be 59 in 2020!!

AndreaParma_82

New nominations for Select Commette Chairs

Petitions: Nick Smith
Education: Tim Loughton
Environmental Audit Committee: Alan Whitehead
International Development: Fabian Hamilton, Yasmin Qureshi
Public Accounts: David Hanson
Science and Technology: Stephen Metcalfe
Work and Pension: Teresa Pearce

Flightpathl

Bob__Sykes said:

williamglenn said:

grahambc1 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

This was my thinking, Watson might not be such a shoo in if a male wins the leadership. I am a supporter of Burnham/Watson partnership but understandably many in Labour would prefer a woman on the leadership team. In that eventuallity I think some votes will shift from Watson perhaps to Eagle.

My personal solution long term would be two deputies

The Tories are hoping you have influence.

Have you considered the attractions of a rotating deputy leadership? Let everyone have a chance.

They could have guest leaders like the guest presenters on HIGNFY!

williamglenn said:

Bob__Sykes said:

As a Tory voter, I'd be more worried about Creasy or Flint than Watson (Brown reincarnate with a Midlands accent).

In fact, Creasy or Flint would be more credible leadership candidates than what we currently have before us - no doubt they're biding their time for 2020....

In Flint's case I doubt it (she's older than she looks). She does look like by far the best candidate for deputy though.

She never seems to age. Hard to believe she'll be 59 in 2020!!

HRT?
But do not get me started on Flint! Shallow shallow shallow. Remember her parading herself down the Downing St catwalk with top secret cabinet memos on display?

Sunil_Prasannan

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

It was me!

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/598513837869015040/photo/1

MTimT

US Presidential 2016, GOP nomination race. A great piece by Larry Sabato et al. I agree with pretty much everything he says, although I'd have the top three as Rubio, Walker and Bush in that order. And Kasich is the dark horse to watch in my view.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/myths-2016-election-candidates-118795.html?hp=t1_r#.VXhJUUu7IpE

TheWhiteRabbit

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Whoever posted that helpful timetable before, could we have it again?

I was just remembering Harman quote: "It would be unacceptable if the both deputy leader and leader of the Labour party turned out to be men" and wondering to what extent voters/backers agree and if there is time for a feedback effect if Burnham (or Corbyn) wins the leadership.

It was me!

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/598513837869015040

Thanks Sunil.

Thus members will be voting a deputy leader without knowing if the leader is a man or a woman. Which just leaves my question about endorsements of deputy candidates by leader candidates? Is this likely?

Flightpathl

DavidL said:

The way Labour doing this is nuts. Surely, if they are to be of any use, the deputy and the leader must be on at least speaking terms with each other. If not the deputy simply becomes a distinct power base within the party and a source of dissent and confusion.

Of course Mr Watson is an incredibly nice chap who can work with anyone and would never dream of dripping uncomplimentary remarks about a colleague in the ears of a helpful journalist. Well, anyone except the last leader of the Labour party. Nice though he is, what is the point of making him deputy if Kendall was made leader and could not stand him (entirely hypothetical of course)?

The only sensible way to do this, as I have said before, is to have joint tickets leading to a unified leadership. Teams work: Cameron and Osborne, Blair and Brown, Maggie and Whitelaw. Split leadership such as Labour had under Ed does not.

The way to do it is not to have a totally made up and bogus position of deputy leader.

Philip_Thompson

NeilVW said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Yes and to your eyes looks just the same

I can most definitely tell the difference (just can't currently afford it). It depends on the size of the screen but the bigger the screen the more noticeable the difference.

My Laptop I'm typing on now is 1920x1080 (the same resolution as full HDTV), there's no reason a 50" TV can't have a higher resolution than a Laptop.

I din't mean than 4k couldn't be a small improvement, but there's no way your viewing experience will be anything like 4 times better.

I agree that four times better is an overstatement (as it was for HDTV), but it will be better. Its an understatement to say you can't see the difference.

I'm looking forward to 4k gaming though I suspect we'll need to wait for PS5 or PS6 to make the most of it. By which point at this rate we could be talking about 16k TVs and so it goes on!

I believe 4k is at the limit of human visual acuity; any more pixels and we would need new eyes, as someone suggested.

Unlikely and due to major simplifications. Many said the same about HDTV - that we were already at the limit of human eyesight, but then 4k came along and trumped it and is clearly superior (though on more of a fine detail level than removing obvious pixels).

There is a limit but it depends upon certain details like eyesight quality (some people have better eyesight than others, those with the best eyesight will gain the most from better images), size of the TV, viewing angle and distance from the screen etc

The iPhone "retina" display claim for instance works on the basis that you are holding the screen 12" away and have 20/20 vision. 20/20 vision is not perfect vision, it is "normal" vision where you don't need glasses but a large portion of the population have better than 20/20. Anyone with better than 20/20 vision would see a difference at a higher resolution, anyone holding the screen at a different distance would see a difference etc

I've seen analysis that shows there could theoretically be differences noticeable for optimal vision upto at least 11k. As we don't have 11k TVs currently its a hard theory to test.

MTimT

Plato said:

After all that Xbox chat https://twitter.com/botzarelli/status/607039147946176512

Plato, there should be one of the modern stealth destroyers in the picture too.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/10/29/1226743/553837-zumwalt.jpg

Plato

LOL http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3118284/SNP-MP-Angus-MacNeill-mocked-trapped-toilet-wrong-lobby-avoid-voting-Tories.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Och no! SNP MP Angus MacNeill mocked after being trapped in toilet in the wrong lobby to avoid voting with Tories

MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has been in the Commons for a decade
But he was caught out after entering corridor to vote with the government
To avoid backing Tories on an EU referendum he locked himself in gents

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

Sorry Nick... (and assorted Scottish whingers)

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/608629600046874624

Hope that isn't a Scottish pavement - how dare an "English" MP stand on a Scottish pavement - it's a clear betrayal of the vow and grounds for a new referendum !

Dumb and Dumber somehow manage to get even worse

Tissue_Price

Adam Bienkov ‏@AdamBienkov

The Evening Standard reports that just 92 registered supporters have signed up to take part in Labour's London mayoral primary.

These are the £3 sign-ups.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, I really liked Civ 2 for the original Playstation. Such a shame consoles get very little in the way of strategy games.

MTimT

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

Plato

London Tories must try harder

Tissue_Price said:

Adam Bienkov ‏@AdamBienkov

The Evening Standard reports that just 92 registered supporters have signed up to take part in Labour's London mayoral primary.

These are the £3 sign-ups.

williamglenn

MTimT said:

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

Filed under 'Things That Probably Won’t Happen, but Are Reasonably Interesting to Think About' by Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/michael-bloomberg-2016-president-rumors

Tim_B

Philip_Thompson said:

NeilVW said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Yes and to your eyes looks just the same

I can most definitely tell the difference (just can't currently afford it). It depends on the size of the screen but the bigger the screen the more noticeable the difference.

My Laptop I'm typing on now is 1920x1080 (the same resolution as full HDTV), there's no reason a 50" TV can't have a higher resolution than a Laptop.

I din't mean than 4k couldn't be a small improvement, but there's no way your viewing experience will be anything like 4 times better.

I agree that four times better is an overstatement (as it was for HDTV), but it will be better. Its an understatement to say you can't see the difference.

I'm looking forward to 4k gaming though I suspect we'll need to wait for PS5 or PS6 to make the most of it. By which point at this rate we could be talking about 16k TVs and so it goes on!

I believe 4k is at the limit of human visual acuity; any more pixels and we would need new eyes, as someone suggested.

Unlikely and due to major simplifications. Many said the same about HDTV - that we were already at the limit of human eyesight, but then 4k came along and trumped it and is clearly superior (though on more of a fine detail level than removing obvious pixels).

There is a limit but it depends upon certain details like eyesight quality (some people have better eyesight than others, those with the best eyesight will gain the most from better images), size of the TV, viewing angle and distance from the screen etc

The iPhone "retina" display claim for instance works on the basis that you are holding the screen 12" away and have 20/20 vision. 20/20 vision is not perfect vision, it is "normal" vision where you don't need glasses but a large portion of the population have better than 20/20. Anyone with better than 20/20 vision would see a difference at a higher resolution, anyone holding the screen at a different distance would see a difference etc

I've seen analysis that shows there could theoretically be differences noticeable for optimal vision upto at least 11k. As we don't have 11k TVs currently its a hard theory to test.

If you go to see a movie in 'digital' IMAX - i.e. not the usual large format film stock - it is in fact 4k HDTV and shows the very poor quality of the image when scaled up to an IMAX screen.

But it is stunning when seen on a 75" HDTV with a high quality feed.

Philip_Thompson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, I really liked Civ 2 for the original Playstation. Such a shame consoles get very little in the way of strategy games.

I've always played strategy on PC. The keyboard+mouse combo works well with strategy.

But I just got Tropico 5 on PS4. First console strategy game I've had in years and I'd highly recommend if if you're interested for a fun strategy game on console. Works much better than I expected and got used to using the controller very quickly.

Tim_B

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I saw a poll last night briefly (hence no reference) that said Clinton beats Bernie Sanders in one of the early primary states by 49% to 41%. Hardly reassuring. Plus Hillary has already flipped on so many issues from her previous stance.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Thompson, I've had my eye on that for a while, but the price has scarcely dropped at all [and I'm still playing The Witcher 3]. I do plan on getting it, though.

Philip_Thompson

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I know it would not be a popular opinion in this country but I'd like to see Walker win. If you ignore his religion he's made some great free market reforms in the likes of Thatcher/Reagan in his state and could do a great job.

The Democrats would be mobilised against him but that doesn't mean they'd win (as they didn't win the recall vote like they expected they would).

richardDodd

Watson and Burnham.... it just keeps getting better..

MTimT

williamglenn said:

MTimT said:

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

Filed under 'Things That Probably Won’t Happen, but Are Reasonably Interesting to Think About' by Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/michael-bloomberg-2016-president-rumors

Probably a fair assessment by Vanity Fair. But senior Democrats have courted Bloomberg to run before (I know, I discussed this at the time over dinner with one very well placed Senator who was active in the effort) and I am sure there are some who are privately wishing he would enter the race right now, even if they are not actively asking him to. Given how shaky Hillary's start has been, it is incredibly risky for the Party to place all its eggs in her basket.

Philip_Thompson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Thompson, I've had my eye on that for a while, but the price has scarcely dropped at all [and I'm still playing The Witcher 3]. I do plan on getting it, though.

Funny I'm the opposite, got my eyes on The Witcher 3. Would you recommend it?

richardDodd

Did that SNP MP mistake the ladies sign for the gents, thought it was a man wearing a kilt..

Philip_Thompson

HRCICWNBPOTUS

Her chance was in 2008 and she blew it. Hillary will not be President.

MTimT

Philip_Thompson said:

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I know it would not be a popular opinion in this country but I'd like to see Walker win. If you ignore his religion he's made some great free market reforms in the likes of Thatcher/Reagan in his state and could do a great job.

The Democrats would be mobilised against him but that doesn't mean they'd win (as they didn't win the recall vote like they expected they would).

Yes, in a purple state, he has won 3 elections in 4 years, two of them with the entire heft of unionism and national democratic apparatus arraigned against him. So regardless of the 'extremism' of some of his views, it would be foolish to rule him out in a national election. Foreign policy is his absolute Achilles heel (as it was and still is Obama's), but he is working diligently on that.

DecrepitJohnL

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I saw a poll last night briefly (hence no reference) that said Clinton beats Bernie Sanders in one of the early primary states by 49% to 41%. Hardly reassuring. Plus Hillary has already flipped on so many issues from her previous stance.

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Thompson, definitely.

Put some early thoughts up here:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-witcher-3-ps4-early-thoughts.html

Short version: there's an initial bug you can get around, and, apart from that, it's fantastic.

Philip_Thompson

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

MTimT

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I saw a poll last night briefly (hence no reference) that said Clinton beats Bernie Sanders in one of the early primary states by 49% to 41%. Hardly reassuring. Plus Hillary has already flipped on so many issues from her previous stance.

Wisconsin straw poll. Here's the link to the article in politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wisconsin-straw-poll-surprise-a-narrow-clinton-win-118727.html

AllyPally_Rob

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

Ghedebrav said:

MTimT said:

Hillary's troubles continue. Now the right wing press has latched onto her personality, dubbing her Hillary Milhous Clinton:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-milhous-clinton-1433891790

Perhaps not as tricky as Dickie, but her favourables and character ratings are heading south.

But aren't all the GOP candidates (excepting Pataki, who probably won't win the nomination) too bonkers to beat her?

Hardly a surprise to see WSJ attacking the Democrat frontrunner.

Perhaps by European political standards. The centre in the US is way to the right of the centre of even England, let alone the UK or continental democracies. (Which is why a Democrat felt politically at home helping Cameron to victory)

Hillary is pursuing the Miliband get out the base strategy, basically ceding the centre. Rubio or Bush could (but not necessarily will) easily mop that up against her. Walker would be Hillary's mirror image, exciting and mobilizing the conservative base but basically ceding the centre. If it's Hillary against Walker and neither side makes fatal gaffes, it comes down to whatever the enthusiasm gap is between the two parties. FWIW, again with no fatal gaffes on either side, I think Hillary loses handily to either Rubio or Bush. And by a big margin to Kasich, who's problem would be to get the nomination.

What would make the election truly interesting is if someone of Bloomberg's stature entered the race on the Dem side.

I saw a poll last night briefly (hence no reference) that said Clinton beats Bernie Sanders in one of the early primary states by 49% to 41%. Hardly reassuring. Plus Hillary has already flipped on so many issues from her previous stance.

Wisconsin straw poll. Here's the link to the article in politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wisconsin-straw-poll-surprise-a-narrow-clinton-win-118727.html

Here's a good analysis of why that straw poll is worthless from 538.com

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

And by the way, Politico is full of pointless nonsense like this. If Hillary ate a burger they'd have a 3 page in depth article on her push to 'woo the cattle farming vote' ect.

MTimT

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

Tim_B

Watching the Criterium du Dauphinee, the team time trial. The Canondale Garmin team are on the road, losing one of their riders off the back. His name? Jack Bauer.

AllyPally_Rob

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

MTimT

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

2010 was 63 pick ups. IIRC, 538 was right in the pack of Rothberg, Sabato et al, all of whom admitted they failed to see how big the wave was. The difference between 54 and 63 was considered a big deal at the time, enough to have pollsters here wondering why they missed it.

Philip_Thompson

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

There's a difference between being right in a two horse race just before the final vote ... and being omnipotent a year and a half before the vote before the primaries have even started.

Ghedebrav

Tim_B said:

Watching the Criterium du Dauphinee, the team time trial. The Canondale Garmin team are on the road, losing one of their riders off the back. His name? Jack Bauer.

Wasn't that yesterday? Looks like my fantasy team may be, er, sub-optimal.

Tim_B

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

To be fair though, an asthmatic 3 toed sloth with some heavy shopping and a low sense of self-esteem could have predicted an Obama win in 2012.

What's intriguing is the total disconnect between Obama's electoral performance and that of his party.

Tim_B

Ghedebrav said:

Tim_B said:

Watching the Criterium du Dauphinee, the team time trial. The Canondale Garmin team are on the road, losing one of their riders off the back. His name? Jack Bauer.

Wasn't that yesterday? Looks like my fantasy team may be, er, sub-optimal.

Yes, through the magic of my dvr. It airs at 1am here.

Wow - just found our Mafeking has been relieved :-)

Plato

LOL

Tim_B said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

To be fair though, an asthmatic 3 toed sloth with some heavy shopping and a low sense of self-esteem could have predicted an Obama win in 2012.

What's intriguing is the total disconnect between Obama's electoral performance and that of his party.

AllyPally_Rob

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

2010 was 63 pick ups. IIRC, 538 was right in the pack of Rothberg, Sabato et al, all of whom admitted they failed to see how big the wave was. The difference between 54 and 63 was considered a big deal at the time, enough to have pollsters here wondering why they missed it.

I'd still be happier to back them over the Politico/Joe Scarborough/Dick Morris model which seems to believe the American electorate change their mind constantly en-mass.

Tim_B

Ghedebrav said:

Tim_B said:

Watching the Criterium du Dauphinee, the team time trial. The Canondale Garmin team are on the road, losing one of their riders off the back. His name? Jack Bauer.

Wasn't that yesterday? Looks like my fantasy team may be, er, sub-optimal.

Is sub-optimal the same as deferred success?

MTimT

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

2010 was 63 pick ups. IIRC, 538 was right in the pack of Rothberg, Sabato et al, all of whom admitted they failed to see how big the wave was. The difference between 54 and 63 was considered a big deal at the time, enough to have pollsters here wondering why they missed it.

I'd still be happier to back them over the Politico/Joe Scarborough/Dick Morris model which seems to believe the American electorate change their mind constantly en-mass.

I agree with you there. Talking Heads rely on the audience instantly forgetting what they have said.

Don't get me wrong, I think 538 is an invaluable resource. I just think they believe blindly in stats and that there is in fact more to life, particularly messy aspects of life, such as politics.

Ghedebrav

Flightpathl said:

DavidL said:

The way Labour doing this is nuts. Surely, if they are to be of any use, the deputy and the leader must be on at least speaking terms with each other. If not the deputy simply becomes a distinct power base within the party and a source of dissent and confusion.

Of course Mr Watson is an incredibly nice chap who can work with anyone and would never dream of dripping uncomplimentary remarks about a colleague in the ears of a helpful journalist. Well, anyone except the last leader of the Labour party. Nice though he is, what is the point of making him deputy if Kendall was made leader and could not stand him (entirely hypothetical of course)?

The only sensible way to do this, as I have said before, is to have joint tickets leading to a unified leadership. Teams work: Cameron and Osborne, Blair and Brown, Maggie and Whitelaw. Split leadership such as Labour had under Ed does not.

The way to do it is not to have a totally made up and bogus position of deputy leader.

A pretty fair point. It's politically useful though, the Prescott example being a case in point - a figure of great stature (ahem) in his party but crap at the job of being a minister. As deputy leader he had the prestige but limited the damage he could by running important bits of the country.

AllyPally_Rob

Tim_B said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The 538 people dismissed it (mind you, they had Brazil winning the World Cup).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-pay-attention-to-that-wisconsin-straw-poll/

While the 538 projection for the Commons was laughably inept in 2010 and 15.

538, like HYUFD of our parish, places inordinate faith in the accuracy of polls, or at least in the accuracy of the wisdom of crowds of polls. When the polls are doing well and it is a two horse race, 538 is remarkably accurate. Their models, IMO, are remarkably unsuited for multiparty politics or elections where polling is not capturing undercurrents, such as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms here.

They predicted 54 gains in the US house in 2010, which isn't bad going at all. They were spot on in 2012 too. They might be rubbish at UK elections but their US track record is very admirable overall. Certainly better than Politico, who were predicting a coin toss in 2012 when Silver rightly pointed out the dynamics showed a solid Obama win from the start.

To be fair though, an asthmatic 3 toed sloth with some heavy shopping and a low sense of self-esteem could have predicted an Obama win in 2012.

What's intriguing is the total disconnect between Obama's electoral performance and that of his party.

Yes I agree, an Obama win was obvious but it didn't stop the likes of Politico and other DC gossip rags making out like it was going to be a late night did it. Even worse you had idiots like Gingrich and Morris declaring a Romney landslide in spite of all the evidence to the opposite.

The Dems had a good night in 2012 across the board, picked up house seats, held the senate (including long-shots like North Dakota) and obvs won the presidency easily.