politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nick Sparrow, the pollster who did most to change post-1992, on poll averaging, herding and the pressure to conform
Following the General Election, the pollsters have been accused of having herd instincts. How else do so many polling companies, acting independently, get to the same – wrong – answer?
I always struggle with "anxiety" and "compartmentalisation" [a horrible word that I first encountered when someone explained how Bill Clinton was able to behave as he did while in the White House]
The question to be answered is how many members will Unite/Unison/GMB sign up to Labour's election? If they can sign up 100k+ of the hard line activists, Corbyn's chances are radically improved. Would Unite even pay the £3 just to encourage registration?
My brother had a terrible stammer and in sympathy I developed the inability to say *hospital* for a few weeks and it came out *hopspital*. I once made the mistake of copying the slang of my classmate and said *Noffink* in the earshot of my mother.
I had my ears boxed for such slovenliness, and was so conscious of doing it again - I started missing the *k* from the end of words instead. That lasted a quite a while much to the annoyance of my mum who couldn't understand WTF was going on.
I always struggle with "anxiety" and "compartmentalisation" [a horrible word that I first encountered when someone explained how Bill Clinton was able to behave as he did while in the White House]
"Greek are continuing to vote in steady numbers; the Mega TV channel says turnout has already hit 35%, so safely on track to clear the 40% threshold to be legally valid.
And the Athens News Agency says ballot boxes are being filled at a similar rate to January’s general election, when 65% of the population voted."
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
Varoufakis' use of the word 'terrorism' to describe the frighteners being put on the Greek people to vote 'Yes' by the euro-elite is undoubtedly hyperbolic, but it is an interesting use of semantics that could have legs for the eurosceptic movement. 'Terrorism' or milder but related 'Terror-tactics' is a neat way to condemn the apocalyptic predictions that pour forth when any change in our relations with the EU is suggested. It would also smart a lot with the eurofanatics. Let's hope 'No' wins and he uses it prominently in his victory speech.
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
I have a horrible feeling the result in Greece could be 50/50 with disputes over spoilt papers, etc.
As the formal question on the ballot is about proposals which contain no VAT concessions for the islands I'd expect them to be disproportionately for No. It will be interesting how turn-out affects the results.
The question to be answered is how many members will Unite/Unison/GMB sign up to Labour's election? If they can sign up 100k+ of the hard line activists, Corbyn's chances are radically improved. Would Unite even pay the £3 just to encourage registration?
I think that there have been very few TU supporters or Labour affiliates sign up. It looks as if the electorate will be mostly individual members.
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
The question to be answered is how many members will Unite/Unison/GMB sign up to Labour's election? If they can sign up 100k+ of the hard line activists, Corbyn's chances are radically improved. Would Unite even pay the £3 just to encourage registration?
I think that there have been very few TU supporters or Labour affiliates sign up. It looks as if the electorate will be mostly individual members.
Yes, so far. But maybe Unite etc are holding back registrations?
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
What would be amusing is if future polls look bad for the Conservatives, we all discount that as no doubt the usual (though not universal) underestimation of them, but it turns out to be totally correct.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
But surely that's simply due to registration and/or differential turnout rather than anything that can't be adjusted for?
The question to be answered is how many members will Unite/Unison/GMB sign up to Labour's election? If they can sign up 100k+ of the hard line activists, Corbyn's chances are radically improved. Would Unite even pay the £3 just to encourage registration?
I think that there have been very few TU supporters or Labour affiliates sign up. It looks as if the electorate will be mostly individual members.
Yes, so far. But maybe Unite etc are holding back registrations?
I thought that the registrations have to be by the individuals rather than another body.
It would be ironic if it was Ed Miliband who neutered UNITE by this change.
As I said at the time, the polls in the final fortnight showed a move away from Labour and a strengthening of the Tory vote... I emailed several PBers of these findings from my SPUD and advised taking on labour with Tory and ukip bets in marginal seats and a con minority outright.
I guess the reason no one took it seriously was initially it showed bad results for the Tories and many Tory diehards tried endlessly to say I was fiddling the numbers for my own advantage (why would I?)
Anyone who was an ICM champion could have made big out of it by keeping the faith w them and taking note of my findings
If there's a *known* problem - surely it can be compensated for? It just sounds really weird to recognise it as *bias*, and then say Oops We Knew after it gets seriously embarrassing again.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
But surely that's simply due to registration and/or differential turnout rather than anything that can't be adjusted for?
If there's a *known* problem - surely it can be compensated for? It just sounds really weird to recognise it as *bias*, and then say Oops We Knew after it gets seriously embarrassing again.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
But surely that's simply due to registration and/or differential turnout rather than anything that can't be adjusted for?
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
For @Andy_JS -this makes not noticing seem even stranger - shotgun wounds, plural.
John 'Goldfinger' Palmer was killed with a shotgun fitted with a silencer and ammunition containing wires designed to inflict maximum damage on internal organs, it has been claimed.
The body of Mr Palmer was discovered by his family at his home in South Weald, Essex, and police initially recorded his death as not suspicious, believing it was the result of complications following a recent operation.
But a post-mortem examination carried out on Tuesday determined the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the chest.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
The rule that has held pretty true since 1992 is that there is always a net overstatement towards the popular left vote.
2010 slightly muddied the waters because the popular left was the Lib Dems rather than Labour, so a few people seemed to think it didn't hold.
Labour holding up disguised the usual left wing under-performance.
If there's a *known* problem - surely it can be compensated for? It just sounds really weird to recognise it as *bias*, and then say Oops We Knew after it gets seriously embarrassing again.
On topic "Almost all the final polls in all general elections since the Second World War show bias and not error. Put simply, they almost always err in one direction or the other, mainly underestimating the Conservatives." So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs? PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
But surely that's simply due to registration and/or differential turnout rather than anything that can't be adjusted for?
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
I did consider the Schwelsig-Holstein Question as a prime example of diplomatic obscurantism too. While on my recent holiday I read the excellent "Englanders and Huns" which charts the course of Anglo-German hostility back to the SWQ. Our reaction to the SHQ may well have laid the foundations for the Great War fifty years later, not least because we failed diplomatically. The book starts with us regarding the Germans as comical poor relations and winds up with us sizing each other up for two rounds of total warfare. Not the whole story of the origins of WW1, but a significant part of it. Highly recommended!
It turns out the Panelbase poll is a joint WOS/Sunday Times effort, there's an unusual couple of bedfellows for you. Anyway here's an analysis of the impact of Ed's statement that he would rather not be in No 10 than do a deal with the SNP:
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
I did consider the Schwelsig-Holstein Question as a prime example of diplomatic obscurantism too. While on my recent holiday I read the excellent "Englanders and Huns" which charts the course of Anglo-German hostility back to the SWQ. Our reaction to the SHQ may well have laid the foundations for the Great War fifty years later, not least because we failed diplomatically. The book starts with us regarding the Germans as comical poor relations and winds up with us sizing each other up for two rounds of total warfare. Not the whole story of the origins of WW1, but a significant part of it. Highly recommended!
FPT: Mr. Tyndall, hmm, I was unaware of Constans' going north of the then border, though I did know he was stationed in Blighty. I stand corrected (not going to quibble over an invasion versus punitive expedition).
FPT 2: Mr. Rabbit, Mr. Max, cheers.
Who's the cat who won't cop out, when there's crashing all about?
Pastor! Morris Dancer!
Edited extra bit: ahem, on-topic: I wonder if a new problem for polling 2015 was the deluge, the saturation of polling which meant people stopped thinking and just ticked the box they'd ticked yesterday.
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
I did consider the Schwelsig-Holstein Question as a prime example of diplomatic obscurantism too. While on my recent holiday I read the excellent "Englanders and Huns" which charts the course of Anglo-German hostility back to the SWQ. Our reaction to the SHQ may well have laid the foundations for the Great War fifty years later, not least because we failed diplomatically. The book starts with us regarding the Germans as comical poor relations and winds up with us sizing each other up for two rounds of total warfare. Not the whole story of the origins of WW1, but a significant part of it. Highly recommended!
Another interesting nugget in it was the German reaction to the British General election of 1880 and Mid-Lothian Campaign before it. Gladstones criticism of British foreign policy (particularly against Russian expansionism in the Balkans) and hands off policy to Europe turned a rift with the Germans into a chasm, and lined up the beligerents for the First War. We wound up on the side of the French and Russians, our longstanding enemies, against the Germans, our longstanding allies.
For @Andy_JS -this makes not noticing seem even stranger - shotgun wounds, plural.
John 'Goldfinger' Palmer was killed with a shotgun fitted with a silencer and ammunition containing wires designed to inflict maximum damage on internal organs, it has been claimed.
The body of Mr Palmer was discovered by his family at his home in South Weald, Essex, and police initially recorded his death as not suspicious, believing it was the result of complications following a recent operation.
But a post-mortem examination carried out on Tuesday determined the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the chest.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed, best race since Bahrain last year, it was fantastic from start to finish.
Cheers. Perhaps flukey, but if luck determines things I'll not complain if it's good.
I have to disagree with you and Mr Sandpit on that one. Amongst the leaders on track, were there any passes that were not down to pit windows or the rain strategy?
Certainly the third-place man did not deserve to be on the podium.
According to the FT unpublished polls put No in the lead. Can't wait to see those arrogant EU bureaucrats faces in a few hours time.
If No wins, the only losers will be the Greek people. They will have the treble whammy of economic collapse, devaluation/inflation and Syrizia still in government.
Mr. Jessop, Rosberg passed both Williams on track. Vettel had passed Raikkonen on-track just prior to the Finn's pit stop. Kvyat was on the verge of passing Bottas as they crossed the line.
Edited extra bit: also, Hamilton passed Bottas early on, on-track, and then lost a place to him later.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed, best race since Bahrain last year, it was fantastic from start to finish.
Cheers. Perhaps flukey, but if luck determines things I'll not complain if it's good.
I have to disagree with you and Mr Sandpit on that one. Amongst the leaders on track, were there any passes that were not down to pit windows or the rain strategy?
Certainly the third-place man did not deserve to be on the podium.
The third place man made the right call of when to change tyres - same lap as the eventual winner, when others stayed out on the dry tyres in the rain.
Direct interference in a sovereign nations democratic process by the EU. They are now not even doing this discreetly . They want regime change because they don't like the government that was voted into power. This was recorded Thursday but broadcast today on the day of the referendum !
Reuters
The head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told German radio that Greece would have to introduce another currency if the “no” vote wins in Sunday's referendum on an aid-for-reforms deal.
"Is Greece still in the euro after this referendum? That is certainly the case, but if they say ‘no’ they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment," Schulz told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio in an interview broadcast on Sunday and taped on Thursday.
"The moment someone introduces a new currency, they exit the euro zone. Those are the elements that give me some hope that the people will not vote ‘no’ today.”
His comments are some of the clearest made by a top EU official.
Mr. Jessop, Rosberg passed both Williams on track. Vettel had passed Raikkonen on-track just prior to the Finn's pit stop. Kvyat was on the verge of passing Bottas as they crossed the line.
Edited extra bit: also, Hamilton passed Bottas early on, on-track, and then lost a place to him later.
I might be (probably am) wrong, but weren't Rosberg's passes due to the rain strategy?
Also, Hamilton's pass at Bottas was right at the start, when neither was particularly ahead.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed, best race since Bahrain last year, it was fantastic from start to finish.
Cheers. Perhaps flukey, but if luck determines things I'll not complain if it's good.
I have to disagree with you and Mr Sandpit on that one. Amongst the leaders on track, were there any passes that were not down to pit windows or the rain strategy?
Certainly the third-place man did not deserve to be on the podium.
The third place man made the right call of when to change tyres - same lap as the eventual winner, when others stayed out on the dry tyres in the rain.
It's Russian Roulette with the rain though, isn't it? Educated guesswork; otherwise they'd get it right all of the time. And Raik's problem was not staying out on dry tyres in the rain; it was he changed too early.
I just didn't find the race very gripping (as did the people who were on slicks in the damp)
If rain is needed to make F1 interesting nowadays, perhaps we'd better return to the idea of random sprinklers on the track ... ;-)
With hindsight, the real error we all made - and I was certainly very guilty of it - was to overlook the significance of the way the votes split in the 2014 local and European elections. As was pointed out by Peter Kellner at the time, the government (by which he meant the Conservatives) was substantially up on 2009, while the Opposition (Labour) were substantially down. Outside London, Labour came third across the whole country in the European vote and a poor second in Scotland. They actually lost votes in Staffordshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Yorkshire in England, and in Wales - which proved eerily prescient for the reverses they suffered this year.
What annoys me is that I even wrote a very detailed analysis of this for my Labour voting friends, pointing out that if these results were any indicator of a General Election result, the Conservatives might lose a handful of seats, but Labour would not be gaining them. I even reminded them that a brilliant performance in London was completely irrelevant because they already held lots of seats there, and that they needed to win outside London, something that Labour simply seemed incapable of doing. I noted that Labour was piling up council votes in seats it held, and failing to take votes directly from the Tories elsewhere, instead winning metropolitan authorities on a split vote between the Tories and UKIP, which they could not rely on being replicated when it really mattered. As it turned out, it was bang on the money. Labour gained seats in London and had a heavy net loss, including a net loss to the Conservatives, everywhere else.
I was universally scoffed at - and because the general trend of the polls (yes, my silly mistake) was to suggest that the European election was a straightforward aberration I concluded that I had been wrong and they were all right. Had I backed my earlier judgement with cash, I'd have made a fortune.
So to get to the point - maybe it's time we lost our fetish with opinion polls and instead started looking at trends from actual results. I remember Anthony King in 2004 saying the opinion polls would be more accurate than the local election results, because they asked 'how would you vote in a general election. But actually, the polls were giving us completely the wrong message while properly interpreted, actual results were stating that Labour was only winning votes from the Conservatives where it didn't matter and was forfeiting them elsewhere.
Incidentally another thought occurs to me, linked to OGH's comments on the Liberal Democrat vote moving to Labour - with hindsight, that benefitted the Conservatives as well. This was something I did not foresee, but it appears we all far underestimated how much of the orange vote was purely tactical. With that unwinding, of course it helped Labour a little - but how many seats did the Conservatives win because Labour and the LDs split the vote between them? Certainly at least 30, many of them in the West Country. A huge gain of votes to Labour that actually had a negative impact on their chances of winning power. We all knew about this effect - yet I didn't hear anyone speculate on how tactical unwind would benefit the Tories, given that the tactic was to keep them out in the first place.
Mr. Moses, yeah, that's been known about for ages. They'd been alternating but one of the two (maybe the Nurburgring) was in financial difficulties and the other (Hockenheim) couldn't do it two years running. Not sure if it'll return. Fan numbers were down a lot (no idea why, they've had very recent champion drivers and the best team by a mile).
Mr. Jessop, you are
The passes happened before the intermediate tyres went on any of the top four.
It was said on Sky F1 coverage there is no German Grand Prix this year is there a specific reason for that?
The Nurburgring has been in financial trouble for some time and they couldn't pay the bill. A few months ago I read a piece where Hockenheim were saying that they have a contract for next year, to which Bernie said "lots of people have contracts...". I love Bernie!
According to the FT unpublished polls put No in the lead. Can't wait to see those arrogant EU bureaucrats faces in a few hours time.
If No wins, the only losers will be the Greek people. They will have the treble whammy of economic collapse, devaluation/inflation and Syrizia still in government.
Whoever wins, the losers from hereon in are the Greek people, and it is not going to be at all pretty to watch. They are in the situation of heads it's disaster, tails it's catastrophe.
Direct interference in a sovereign nations democratic process by the EU. They are now not even doing this discreetly . They want regime change because they don't like the government that was voted into power.
Reuters
Greece Referendum Day live: Fears a major Greek bank will run out of cash as EU threatens to withdraw euro
The head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told German radio that Greece would have to introduce another currency if the “no” vote wins in Sunday's referendum on an aid-for-reforms deal.
"Is Greece still in the euro after this referendum? That is certainly the case, but if they say ‘no’ they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment," Schulz told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio in an interview broadcast on Sunday and taped on Thursday.
"The moment someone introduces a new currency, they exit the euro zone. Those are the elements that give me some hope that the people will not vote ‘no’ today.”
His comments are some of the clearest made by a top EU official.
Such comments are not suprising when our EU masters believe we have entered a post-democratic age.
According to the FT unpublished polls put No in the lead. Can't wait to see those arrogant EU bureaucrats faces in a few hours time.
If No wins, the only losers will be the Greek people. They will have the treble whammy of economic collapse, devaluation/inflation and Syrizia still in government.
What is the alternative? Vote Yes? When even the IMF believe the debt is unsustainable this makes absolutely no sense. The EU will bend over backwards to keep Greece in the EU.
According to the FT unpublished polls put No in the lead. Can't wait to see those arrogant EU bureaucrats faces in a few hours time.
If No wins, the only losers will be the Greek people. They will have the treble whammy of economic collapse, devaluation/inflation and Syrizia still in government.
So the aforementioned EU bureaucrats are not acting out of self-interest in advocating a yes vote since they wouldn't be losers in the event of a no vote? One thing we can be sure of is that there will be plenty of losers either way, but we'll never know who most of them are in the absence of the old counterfactual....
Mr. Moses, yeah, that's been known about for ages. They'd been alternating but one of the two (maybe the Nurburgring) was in financial difficulties and the other (Hockenheim) couldn't do it two years running. Not sure if it'll return. Fan numbers were down a lot (no idea why, they've had very recent champion drivers and the best team by a mile).
Mr. Jessop, you are
The passes happened before the intermediate tyres went on any of the top four.
Mr. Moses, yeah, that's been known about for ages. They'd been alternating but one of the two (maybe the Nurburgring) was in financial difficulties and the other (Hockenheim) couldn't do it two years running. Not sure if it'll return. Fan numbers were down a lot (no idea why, they've had very recent champion drivers and the best team by a mile).
Mr. Jessop, you are
The passes happened before the intermediate tyres went on any of the top four.
Direct interference in a sovereign nations democratic process by the EU. They are now not even doing this discreetly . They want regime change because they don't like the government that was voted into power. This was recorded Thursday but broadcast today on the day of the referendum !
Reuters
The head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told German radio that Greece would have to introduce another currency if the “no” vote wins in Sunday's referendum on an aid-for-reforms deal.
"Is Greece still in the euro after this referendum? That is certainly the case, but if they say ‘no’ they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment," Schulz told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio in an interview broadcast on Sunday and taped on Thursday.
"The moment someone introduces a new currency, they exit the euro zone. Those are the elements that give me some hope that the people will not vote ‘no’ today.”
His comments are some of the clearest made by a top EU official.
That's quite disgraceful! The Greek govt are wrong about almost everything, but the one thing they have right is that there's no mechanism for them to be kicked out of the Euro.
This sort of statement by EU officials doesn't bode well for the British referendum either, although the consequences for a British exit are very different to those in Greece.
Incidentally another thought occurs to me, linked to OGH's comments on the Liberal Democrat vote moving to Labour - with hindsight, that benefitted the Conservatives as well. This was something I did not foresee, but it appears we all far underestimated how much of the orange vote was purely tactical. With that unwinding, of course it helped Labour a little - but how many seats did the Conservatives win because Labour and the LDs split the vote between them? Certainly at least 30, many of them in the West Country. A huge gain of votes to Labour that actually had a negative impact on their chances of winning power. We all knew about this effect - yet I didn't hear anyone speculate on how tactical unwind would benefit the Tories, given that the tactic was to keep them out in the first place.
Lots of people - including myself - were speculating that it would benefit the Tories. What Labour needed was the Lib Dems in Tory-Labour marginal to vote for them. My question was, if you voted Lib Dem in such a seat in 2010, you'd probably know that it wouldn't affect the result. So would you be more likely to vote Labour in 2015 than in 2010? I think the answer to that question was no.
Incidentally another thought occurs to me, linked to OGH's comments on the Liberal Democrat vote moving to Labour - with hindsight, that benefitted the Conservatives as well. This was something I did not foresee, but it appears we all far underestimated how much of the orange vote was purely tactical. With that unwinding, of course it helped Labour a little - but how many seats did the Conservatives win because Labour and the LDs split the vote between them? Certainly at least 30, many of them in the West Country. A huge gain of votes to Labour that actually had a negative impact on their chances of winning power. We all knew about this effect - yet I didn't hear anyone speculate on how tactical unwind would benefit the Tories, given that the tactic was to keep them out in the first place.
Lots of people - including myself - were speculating that it would benefit the Tories. What Labour needed was the Lib Dems in Tory-Labour marginal to vote for them. My question was, if you voted Lib Dem in such a seat in 2010, you'd probably know that it wouldn't affect the result. So would you be more likely to vote Labour in 2015 than in 2010? I think the answer to that question was no.
Perhaps that would explain some of the rise in the Green and SNP vote? (depending on where in the country they lived)? Or even those swings to the Tories in such marginals? I haven't seen any data, I'm speculating aloud. If anyone does have such information I'd be interested to see it.
Direct interference in a sovereign nations democratic process by the EU. They are now not even doing this discreetly . They want regime change because they don't like the government that was voted into power. This was recorded Thursday but broadcast today on the day of the referendum !
Reuters
The head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told German radio that Greece would have to introduce another currency if the “no” vote wins in Sunday's referendum on an aid-for-reforms deal.
"Is Greece still in the euro after this referendum? That is certainly the case, but if they say ‘no’ they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment," Schulz told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio in an interview broadcast on Sunday and taped on Thursday.
"The moment someone introduces a new currency, they exit the euro zone. Those are the elements that give me some hope that the people will not vote ‘no’ today.”
His comments are some of the clearest made by a top EU official.
That's quite disgraceful! The Greek govt are wrong about almost everything, but the one thing they have right is that there's no mechanism for them to be kicked out of the Euro.
This sort of statement by EU officials doesn't bode well for the British referendum either, although the consequences for a British exit are very different to those in Greece.
Sounds more like a statement of the bleeding obvious to me! If the Greek banks are without liquidity in Euros then they will have to use something else.
From what I hear the electorate in the greek referendum is somewhat different than in January , it seems turnout will be up , and vastly up among young people.
According to my info the share of voters under 30 has jumped by 4% and the share of people over 65 has fallen by 4% compared with the January election.
Incidentally another thought occurs to me, linked to OGH's comments on the Liberal Democrat vote moving to Labour - with hindsight, that benefitted the Conservatives as well. This was something I did not foresee, but it appears we all far underestimated how much of the orange vote was purely tactical. With that unwinding, of course it helped Labour a little - but how many seats did the Conservatives win because Labour and the LDs split the vote between them? Certainly at least 30, many of them in the West Country. A huge gain of votes to Labour that actually had a negative impact on their chances of winning power. We all knew about this effect - yet I didn't hear anyone speculate on how tactical unwind would benefit the Tories, given that the tactic was to keep them out in the first place.
Lots of people - including myself - were speculating that it would benefit the Tories. What Labour needed was the Lib Dems in Tory-Labour marginal to vote for them. My question was, if you voted Lib Dem in such a seat in 2010, you'd probably know that it wouldn't affect the result. So would you be more likely to vote Labour in 2015 than in 2010? I think the answer to that question was no.
Perhaps that would explain some of the rise in the Green and SNP vote? (depending on where in the country they lived)? Or even those swings to the Tories in such marginals? I haven't seen any data, I'm speculating aloud. If anyone does have such information I'd be interested to see it.
I haven't looked at the figures in detail - but the mistake some people make is to assume that a Lib Dem voter simply doesn't want the Tories in power. But in the Tory-Labour marginals I suspect a good chunk of the 2010 Lib Dem vote went for the Tories.
On a different point, I've been wondering about shy Tories. The picture in mind of such a voter is a lower middle/working class voter who is inclined to agree with the stuff Labour say about inequality, but when it comes to it they have to put their family first and that means voting for who they trust with the economy. But I wonder if there is a good chunk of quite well off people who generally wouldn't vote Tory because they are trendy lefties and it doesn't matter who is in power as it wouldn't affect them. But this time, when faced with Ed propped up by the SNP they thought "no ******* way".
Mr. Sandpit, indeed, there are mutterings of Monza and/or Spa going too.
Whilst Monaco pays no fee.
Yes, most of the traditional European circuits are under threat, there's not been a GP in France for a few years now. Without wanting to derail this thread, those who control the sport seem much more at home dealing with governments who will subsidise the races and guarantee income for the promoter at the expense of the fans. The sponsors also want to expose themselves to more developing markets. Silverstone is lucky in benefiting from a British champion and lots of British based teams. It is true that Monoco is the only track that pays no fee, on the basis that it's the only place that F1 needs to go on a mutually convenient basis.
Just in case those who criticised my earlier betting suggestion on the United Kingdom British Grand Prix, I am pleased to report that it duly delivered. Always looked a good'un and so it proved!
Just in case those who criticised my earlier betting suggestion on the United Kingdom British Grand Prix, I am pleased to report that it duly delivered. Always looked a good'un and so it proved!
Yes, well done Mr. Putney. I ignored everyone's (correct) tips and gave my cash to the barman instead! Ho hum.
If I didn't knew that the Economist is always wrong, then I would have called it already for NO due to young voters actually voting instead of going for a swim.
With hindsight, the real error we all made - and I was certainly very guilty of it - was to overlook the significance of the way the votes split in the 2014 local and European elections. As was pointed out by Peter Kellner at the time, the government (by which he meant the Conservatives) was substantially up on 2009, while the Opposition (Labour) were substantially down. Outside London, Labour came third across the whole country in the European vote and a poor second in Scotland. They actually lost votes in Staffordshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Yorkshire in England, and in Wales - which proved eerily prescient for the reverses they suffered this year.
What annoys me is that I even wrote a very detailed analysis of this for my Labour voting friends, pointing out that if these results were any indicator of a General Election result, the Conservatives might lose a handful of seats, but Labour would not be gaining them. I even reminded them that a brilliant performance in London was completely irrelevant because they already held lots of seats there, and that they needed to win outside London, something that Labour simply seemed incapable of doing. I noted that Labour was piling up council votes in seats it held, and failing to take votes directly from the Tories elsewhere, instead winning metropolitan authorities on a split vote between the Tories and UKIP, which they could not rely on being replicated when it really mattered. As it turned out, it was bang on the money. Labour gained seats in London and had a heavy net loss, including a net loss to the Conservatives, everywhere else.
I was universally scoffed at - and because the general trend of the polls (yes, my silly mistake) was to suggest that the European election was a straightforward aberration I concluded that I had been wrong and they were all right. Had I backed my earlier judgement with cash, I'd have made a fortune.
So to get to the point - maybe it's time we lost our fetish with opinion polls and instead started looking at trends from actual results. I remember Anthony King in 2004 saying the opinion polls would be more accurate than the local election results, because they asked 'how would you vote in a general election. But actually, the polls were giving us completely the wrong message while properly interpreted, actual results were stating that Labour was only winning votes from the Conservatives where it didn't matter and was forfeiting them elsewhere.
Votes in local elections are usually a strong indicator of how people will vote in the coming general election, so long as you factor in swing back to the government. The locals of 1968-70, 1971-74, 1976-78, 1993-96, 2006-2009, showed that the incumbent government wasn't coming back.
The locals of 1980-91, 1998-2003, and 2011-2014 showed the government wasn't in much trouble.
On a different point, I've been wondering about shy Tories. The picture in mind of such a voter is a lower middle/working class voter who is inclined to agree with the stuff Labour say about inequality, but when it comes to it they have to put their family first and that means voting for who they trust with the economy. But I wonder if there is a good chunk of quite well off people who generally wouldn't vote Tory because they are trendy lefties and it doesn't matter who is in power as it wouldn't affect them. But this time, when faced with Ed propped up by the SNP they thought "no ******* way".
Interesting. That must certainly have been the case here in Cannock, where there was evidently a lower-middle class bedrock of Conservative support carefully hiding itself (simply because there is absolutely no other way of explaining the result). It is difficult to imagine, however, that any wealthy, trendy lefties would not have been thrilled at the idea of a Labour government propped up by the SNP. In my experience such people are fervently anti-English and would love the idea of a bunch of rabid Scottish nationalists bossing them around, with a certain lack of awareness of the irony. As for Labour under Ed - well, if we take a class analysis, he IS a wealthy, trendy lefty and I think they loved him!
My guess is that it was the working classes and lower middle classes who switched from Labour. Looking at all the election data, the swings in the seats the Conservatives won - Telford, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View - plus the hefty swings in Stroud/Gloucester, Swindon, Warwickshire etc - would support that. The question has to be exactly how the polls all missed this and whether they were (A) incompetent or (B) being lied to. Your view seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for the latter.
The passes happened before the intermediate tyres went on any of the top four.
Yes, but it was in the damp conditions. It's the worst of all worlds when you have dry-damp-dry, as it makes the 'sport' into a game of random luck. It's not just the driver's skill, but factors like how worn their tyres are at that stage of the race.
I don't mind it when there's a prolonged period of real rain that allows drivers to show their skills in the wet, but we did not get to see that much today.
In the dry, aside from the first lap and pit stops, you mostly had the leaders just following each other. Williams could not overtake Williams; Mercedes could not overtake Williams, and even Mercedes could not overtake Williams. DRS was supposed to make overtaking easier, and although it often works, it seems to have much less effect when you have a train of cars all within a second of each other.
Although I'm glad the winner won, and he deserved it, it was hardly a classic race IMHO. Or even a memorable one in terms of racing.
Mr. Jessop, all their tyres were of comparable age.
Silverstone's got high speed corners for which aerodynamics matter, making passing tricky due to dirty air. But if you think that's bad, wait until Hungary (next). And be sure to check the odds for No Safety Car (it's the circuit least likely to see one).
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion. I liked the race. And not just because this weekend is the most profitable since Monza 2009.
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
I confess I don't quite follow the distinction between 'herd instinct' and 'informational cascade', though its still better than that judgement LIAMT linked to once of a judge trying to distinguish between Wednesbury unreasonableness, objective unreasonableness and some third option I forget.
Solved in 1920 by plebiscite?
Northern part of Schleswig voted for Denmark, middle part voted for Germany. Southern part was assumed to be German enough to not bother being given a vote.
The one new piece of polling methadology which comes out as intact and promising is the exercise Survation did which was to put a mock ballot paper in front of the respondent and ask them to replicate what they would do in the ballot box.It was one of the few polls which got the 2015 GE correct.The one factor which remains peculiar is the usually reliable local election guides which pointed toward a tie.The only thing to explain this is late swing toward the Tories,maybe even last minute switching in the booth.
With hindsight, the real error we all made - and I was certainly very guilty of it - was to overlook the significance of the way the votes split in the 2014 local and European elections. As was pointed out by Peter Kellner at the time, the government (by which he meant the Conservatives) was substantially up on 2009, while the Opposition (Labour) were substantially down. Outside London, Labour came third across the whole country in the European vote and a poor second in Scotland. They actually lost votes in Staffordshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Yorkshire in England, and in Wales - which proved eerily prescient for the reverses they suffered this year.
What annoys me is that I even wrote a very detailed analysis of this for my Labour voting friends, pointing out that if these results were any indicator of a General Election result, the Conservatives might lose a handful of seats, but Labour would not be gaining them. I even reminded them that a brilliant performance in London was completely irrelevant because they already held lots of seats there, and that they needed to win outside London, something that Labour simply seemed incapable of doing. I noted that Labour was piling up council votes in seats it held, and failing to take votes directly from the Tories elsewhere, instead winning metropolitan authorities on a split vote between the Tories and UKIP, which they could not rely on being replicated when it really mattered. As it turned out, it was bang on the money. Labour gained seats in London and had a heavy net loss, including a net loss to the Conservatives, everywhere else.
I was universally scoffed at - and because the general trend of the polls (yes, my silly mistake) was to suggest that the European election was a straightforward aberration I concluded that I had been wrong and they were all right. Had I backed my earlier judgement with cash, I'd have made a fortune.
So to get to the point - maybe it's time we lost our fetish with opinion polls and instead started looking at trends from actual results. I remember Anthony King in 2004 saying the opinion polls would be more accurate than the local election results, because they asked 'how would you vote in a general election. But actually, the polls were giving us completely the wrong message while properly interpreted, actual results were stating that Labour was only winning votes from the Conservatives where it didn't matter and was forfeiting them elsewhere.
I made similar points at the time about the Euros and the locals, emphasising that the polls were underestimating the Tories by 2% and was 'corrected' by 'experts' on here who said Labour voters never bothered to vote except in General elections.
Interesting. That must certainly have been the case here in Cannock, where there was evidently a lower-middle class bedrock of Conservative support carefully hiding itself (simply because there is absolutely no other way of explaining the result). It is difficult to imagine, however, that any wealthy, trendy lefties would not have been thrilled at the idea of a Labour government propped up by the SNP. In my experience such people are fervently anti-English and would love the idea of a bunch of rabid Scottish nationalists bossing them around, with a certain lack of awareness of the irony. As for Labour under Ed - well, if we take a class analysis, he IS a wealthy, trendy lefty and I think they loved him!
My guess is that it was the working classes and lower middle classes who switched from Labour. Looking at all the election data, the swings in the seats the Conservatives won - Telford, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View - plus the hefty swings in Stroud/Gloucester, Swindon, Warwickshire etc - would support that. The question has to be exactly how the polls all missed this and whether they were (A) incompetent or (B) being lied to. Your view seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for the latter.
Another theory that I have is that there were some shy Kippers among those saying they would vote Labour and some shy Tories among the not so shy Kippers!
Mr. Mark, just from memory, I think Mr. Palmer said voting ended at 6pm, early results would occur around 8pm and we'd know for certain around 11pm. I may've misremembered, though.
Edited extra bit: Twitter seems to think you're correct. I stand corrected (again).
If I didn't knew that the Economist is always wrong, then I would have called it already for NO due to young voters actually voting instead of going for a swim.
It takes 5 minutes to vote, you can still spend the rest of the day swimming!
Mr. Mark, just from memory, I think Mr. Palmer said voting ended at 6pm, early results would occur around 8pm and we'd know for certain around 11pm. I may've misremembered, though.
Edited extra bit: Twitter seems to think you're correct. I stand corrected (again).
Mr. Speedy, on this very site I read that pensioners were for Yes by about 70:30. Whichever way it goes, there may well be a rather fraught social situation in Greece afterwards.
My info from Athens is that the opinion polls that will come out in about half an hour give a NO lead of 3-4 points.
Remember those are not Exit Polls.
The young did come out and vote this time.
What are people's views on the likely impact of either result? I've got two extremes for each...
Yes: 1) Greece goes through all this again five years from now when it becomes apparent that the terms make SFA difference to the debts (2) Greece is gradually, gingerly nursed back to health via emergency loans, including some writedowns of its debt on the quiet. However, it takes 20 years of abject hardship for Greece during which they consistently vote in hardline parties which make alarming remarks about Turkey every five minutes to shore up their vote and we get used to the idea of Greek waiters in every European resort.
No: (1) Greece exits the Euro and collapses in flames (2) The European political elites panic, offer some hurried concessions and keep Greece in the euro at the cost of in the next three years also having to bail out Spain, Italy and possibly France.
I have to say none of those options looks exactly attractive. Are there any others?
Comments
I always struggle with "anxiety" and "compartmentalisation" [a horrible word that I first encountered when someone explained how Bill Clinton was able to behave as he did while in the White House]
Hmm .. are there now fewer qualified pollsters or less qualified pollsters?
We pedants should stay united.
I had my ears boxed for such slovenliness, and was so conscious of doing it again - I started missing the *k* from the end of words instead. That lasted a quite a while much to the annoyance of my mum who couldn't understand WTF was going on.
And the Athens News Agency says ballot boxes are being filled at a similar rate to January’s general election, when 65% of the population voted."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/05/greeces-eurozone-future-in-the-balance-as-referendum-gets-under-way--eu-euro-bailout-live
Palmerston is one of my favourites!
So there is a methodological problem with our pollsters systems that underestimate the Conservatives. Rather a stunning act of stupidity by the pollsters. They choose to look like each other rather than to be accurate. We should establish a new PB rule that every polling figure for the Conservatives should be treated as inaccurate by a standard %. How about starting with 2%? Now should all the 2% comne from Labour, or 1.5% from Labour and 0.5% from the LDs?
PS. Time we encouraged the use of one decimal point by the polling companies?
It would be ironic if it was Ed Miliband who neutered UNITE by this change.
I guess the reason no one took it seriously was initially it showed bad results for the Tories and many Tory diehards tried endlessly to say I was fiddling the numbers for my own advantage (why would I?)
Anyone who was an ICM champion could have made big out of it by keeping the faith w them and taking note of my findings
I'm perplexed. I really am.
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
2010 slightly muddied the waters because the popular left was the Lib Dems rather than Labour, so a few people seemed to think it didn't hold.
Labour holding up disguised the usual left wing under-performance.
I did consider the Schwelsig-Holstein Question as a prime example of diplomatic obscurantism too. While on my recent holiday I read the excellent "Englanders and Huns" which charts the course of Anglo-German hostility back to the SWQ. Our reaction to the SHQ may well have laid the foundations for the Great War fifty years later, not least because we failed diplomatically. The book starts with us regarding the Germans as comical poor relations and winds up with us sizing each other up for two rounds of total warfare. Not the whole story of the origins of WW1, but a significant part of it. Highly recommended!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0857205285/R1Z1MT9MIY6SBG/ref=mw_dp_cr?cursor=1&sort=rd
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-wages-of-triangulation/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0857205285/R1Z1MT9MIY6SBG/ref=mw_dp_cr?cursor=1&sort=rd
FPT: Mr. Tyndall, hmm, I was unaware of Constans' going north of the then border, though I did know he was stationed in Blighty. I stand corrected (not going to quibble over an invasion versus punitive expedition).
FPT 2: Mr. Rabbit, Mr. Max, cheers.
Who's the cat who won't cop out, when there's crashing all about?
Pastor! Morris Dancer!
Edited extra bit: ahem, on-topic: I wonder if a new problem for polling 2015 was the deluge, the saturation of polling which meant people stopped thinking and just ticked the box they'd ticked yesterday.
Another interesting nugget in it was the German reaction to the British General election of 1880 and Mid-Lothian Campaign before it. Gladstones criticism of British foreign policy (particularly against Russian expansionism in the Balkans) and hands off policy to Europe turned a rift with the Germans into a chasm, and lined up the beligerents for the First War. We wound up on the side of the French and Russians, our longstanding enemies, against the Germans, our longstanding allies.
Passer by - " Errr....There's a big 'feck off' hole in his chest"
Cheers. Perhaps flukey, but if luck determines things I'll not complain if it's good.
Certainly the third-place man did not deserve to be on the podium.
Edited extra bit: also, Hamilton passed Bottas early on, on-track, and then lost a place to him later.
Reuters
The head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told German radio that Greece would have to introduce another currency if the “no” vote wins in Sunday's referendum on an aid-for-reforms deal.
"Is Greece still in the euro after this referendum? That is certainly the case, but if they say ‘no’ they will have to introduce another currency after the referendum because the euro is not available as a means of payment," Schulz told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio in an interview broadcast on Sunday and taped on Thursday.
"The moment someone introduces a new currency, they exit the euro zone. Those are the elements that give me some hope that the people will not vote ‘no’ today.”
His comments are some of the clearest made by a top EU official.
Also, Hamilton's pass at Bottas was right at the start, when neither was particularly ahead.
I just didn't find the race very gripping (as did the people who were on slicks in the damp)
If rain is needed to make F1 interesting nowadays, perhaps we'd better return to the idea of random sprinklers on the track ... ;-)
It was said on Sky F1 coverage there is no German Grand Prix this year is there a specific reason for that?
What annoys me is that I even wrote a very detailed analysis of this for my Labour voting friends, pointing out that if these results were any indicator of a General Election result, the Conservatives might lose a handful of seats, but Labour would not be gaining them. I even reminded them that a brilliant performance in London was completely irrelevant because they already held lots of seats there, and that they needed to win outside London, something that Labour simply seemed incapable of doing. I noted that Labour was piling up council votes in seats it held, and failing to take votes directly from the Tories elsewhere, instead winning metropolitan authorities on a split vote between the Tories and UKIP, which they could not rely on being replicated when it really mattered. As it turned out, it was bang on the money. Labour gained seats in London and had a heavy net loss, including a net loss to the Conservatives, everywhere else.
I was universally scoffed at - and because the general trend of the polls (yes, my silly mistake) was to suggest that the European election was a straightforward aberration I concluded that I had been wrong and they were all right. Had I backed my earlier judgement with cash, I'd have made a fortune.
So to get to the point - maybe it's time we lost our fetish with opinion polls and instead started looking at trends from actual results. I remember Anthony King in 2004 saying the opinion polls would be more accurate than the local election results, because they asked 'how would you vote in a general election. But actually, the polls were giving us completely the wrong message while properly interpreted, actual results were stating that Labour was only winning votes from the Conservatives where it didn't matter and was forfeiting them elsewhere.
Mr. Jessop, you are
The passes happened before the intermediate tyres went on any of the top four.
What is the alternative? Vote Yes? When even the IMF believe the debt is unsustainable this makes absolutely no sense. The EU will bend over backwards to keep Greece in the EU.
This sort of statement by EU officials doesn't bode well for the British referendum either, although the consequences for a British exit are very different to those in Greece.
Whilst Monaco pays no fee.
According to my info the share of voters under 30 has jumped by 4% and the share of people over 65 has fallen by 4% compared with the January election.
On a different point, I've been wondering about shy Tories. The picture in mind of such a voter is a lower middle/working class voter who is inclined to agree with the stuff Labour say about inequality, but when it comes to it they have to put their family first and that means voting for who they trust with the economy. But I wonder if there is a good chunk of quite well off people who generally wouldn't vote Tory because they are trendy lefties and it doesn't matter who is in power as it wouldn't affect them. But this time, when faced with Ed propped up by the SNP they thought "no ******* way".
https://twitter.com/TheEIU_Europe/status/617704139951341569
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/united-kingdom-post-race-analysis.html
Without wanting to derail this thread, those who control the sport seem much more at home dealing with governments who will subsidise the races and guarantee income for the promoter at the expense of the fans. The sponsors also want to expose themselves to more developing markets. Silverstone is lucky in benefiting from a British champion and lots of British based teams. It is true that Monoco is the only track that pays no fee, on the basis that it's the only place that F1 needs to go on a mutually convenient basis.
Shows what I know
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. Thankfully the UK is once again bucking the trend of European decline
The locals of 1980-91, 1998-2003, and 2011-2014 showed the government wasn't in much trouble.
My guess is that it was the working classes and lower middle classes who switched from Labour. Looking at all the election data, the swings in the seats the Conservatives won - Telford, Southampton Itchen, Plymouth Moor View - plus the hefty swings in Stroud/Gloucester, Swindon, Warwickshire etc - would support that. The question has to be exactly how the polls all missed this and whether they were (A) incompetent or (B) being lied to. Your view seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for the latter.
I don't mind it when there's a prolonged period of real rain that allows drivers to show their skills in the wet, but we did not get to see that much today.
In the dry, aside from the first lap and pit stops, you mostly had the leaders just following each other. Williams could not overtake Williams; Mercedes could not overtake Williams, and even Mercedes could not overtake Williams. DRS was supposed to make overtaking easier, and although it often works, it seems to have much less effect when you have a train of cars all within a second of each other.
Although I'm glad the winner won, and he deserved it, it was hardly a classic race IMHO. Or even a memorable one in terms of racing.
Silverstone's got high speed corners for which aerodynamics matter, making passing tricky due to dirty air. But if you think that's bad, wait until Hungary (next). And be sure to check the odds for No Safety Car (it's the circuit least likely to see one).
Anyway, it's a matter of opinion. I liked the race. And not just because this weekend is the most profitable since Monza 2009.
Solved in 1920 by plebiscite?
Northern part of Schleswig voted for Denmark, middle part voted for Germany. Southern part was assumed to be German enough to not bother being given a vote.
Quick - get me a sexed-up dossier....
Edited extra bit: Twitter seems to think you're correct. I stand corrected (again).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11718775/Greece-euro-referendum-day-results-live.html
Remember those are not Exit Polls.
The young did come out and vote this time.
'Social justice and strong business sector go together, says Jeremy Corbyn'
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jeremy-corbyn-labour-social-justice-9588566#ICID=sharebar_twitter
http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/e/public/index.html?lang=en#{"cls":"main","params":{}}
Yes: 1) Greece goes through all this again five years from now when it becomes apparent that the terms make SFA difference to the debts (2) Greece is gradually, gingerly nursed back to health via emergency loans, including some writedowns of its debt on the quiet. However, it takes 20 years of abject hardship for Greece during which they consistently vote in hardline parties which make alarming remarks about Turkey every five minutes to shore up their vote and we get used to the idea of Greek waiters in every European resort.
No: (1) Greece exits the Euro and collapses in flames (2) The European political elites panic, offer some hurried concessions and keep Greece in the euro at the cost of in the next three years also having to bail out Spain, Italy and possibly France.
I have to say none of those options looks exactly attractive. Are there any others?