politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The disintegrating establishment

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The disintegrating establishment

In 2010, Britain was being wrestled over by two parties competing to portray themselves to the public as the natural party of government.  In his first conference speech, David Cameron returned repeatedly to the theme of “substance”.  He told his party:

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave. Re-read (or just read) Michael Gove's piece on why he was backing leave, it was entirely coherent and was on issues of competence not charisma.

To dismiss Gove and others as "the crazies" is shockingly arrogant.

FrancisUrquhart

So how many balls will WI win this with to spare?

Estobar

"they campaign on running away from the complexities of multilateral engagement, variously on immigration, regulation, security concerns or whatever else flits across their minds (how leaving the EU is actually going to help on any of these fronts remains largely unexplored)."

What an absurd load of bias twaddle.

The people with their heads in the sand, ignoring the reality of a crumbling Europe at onslaught from Islamic terrorism, are the EU tripe brigade. Europe is over. This is the reality and the momentum is swinging away from people like you. Your day has been.

TCPoliticalBetting

In your view Mr Meeks only through your eyes.
"Without even a pretence of coherence, they campaign on running away from the complexities of multilateral engagement, variously on immigration, regulation, security concerns or whatever else flits across their minds (how leaving the EU is actually going to help on any of these fronts remains largely unexplored). "

The above statement could also be levelled against the End of Days nonsense that comes out of REMAIN people. But you notice the mote in the eye of LEAVE and ignore the beam in REMAIN's eye.

You should re-read Mr Herdson's recent article on here to look for ways to write an article without your bias spoiling the article.

Charles

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave. Re-read (or just read) Michael Gove's piece on why he was backing leave, it was entirely coherent and was on issues of competence not charisma.

To dismiss Gove and others as "the crazies" is shockingly arrogant.

I had made the same point but my "first" was eaten by the "discussion ID required" monster

It's also twice as long as it needs to be to make the necessary points

MP_SE

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave. Re-read (or just read) Michael Gove's piece on why he was backing leave, it was entirely coherent and was on issues of competence not charisma.

To dismiss Gove and others as "the crazies" is shockingly arrogant.

Agreed.

And then people wonder why there is widespread dislike for the metropolitan elite...

Estobar

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I

You should re-read Mr Herdson's recent article on here to look for ways to write an article without your bias spoiling the article.

Hear hear. It just makes political betting look like a political version of UniLad with this sort of bias tripe.

Alistair

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

TheScreamingEagles

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

Estobar

This is what political betting could be like:
http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave

And that, Mr Meeks, is the kind of attention to detail and even-handedness which would lift the site considerably from its present doldrums.

TCPoliticalBetting

MP_SE said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave. Re-read (or just read) Michael Gove's piece on why he was backing leave, it was entirely coherent and was on issues of competence not charisma.

To dismiss Gove and others as "the crazies" is shockingly arrogant.

Agreed.

And then people wonder why there is widespread dislike for the metropolitan elite...

An interesting point that Mr Meeks nasty, dismissive statement illustrates why there is a gulf between the majority of the voters and people such as himself.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave.

I agree, although technically I don't think he applied it to all those who back Leave (though he may also believe that) as the paragraph was about the 'insurgent right', which is not all those who back Leave (however there is a lot of cross over).

I think the main problem is the current cabinet do not appear to be offering competence in government at the moment either - so even if they were the sole lot offering it, and I'd be more comfortable with them than the others, they aren't in a position to sell it very effectively.

I do agree that even a sole party of good administration can and would fall at some point, and thus the the implicit danger for the Tories, seeing themselves as that party, being complacent.

Personally I prefer my parties to be cautious, flexible and above all competent. My options aren't great, and in any case I feel like most people either don't care about the last two, or they assume a base level of competence even from the most raving and extreme, which I hope will not be proved wrong.

But I'm off. I look forward to fellow leavers not just disagreeing with Mr Meeks, but being offended that he has dared to hold his opinion and it has been uploaded.

initforthemoney

perhaps mr meeks could tell us which establishment politicians display ideological or policy-based coherence.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave.

I agree, although technically I don't think he applied it to all those who back Leave (though he may also believe that) as the paragraph was about the 'insurgent right', which is not all those who back Leave (however there is a lot of cross over).

I think the main problem is the current cabinet do not appear to be offering competence in government at the moment either - so even if they were the sole lot offering it, and I'd be more comfortable with them than the others, they aren't in a position to sell it very effectively.

I do agree that even a sole party of good administration can and would fall at some point, and thus the the implicit danger for the Tories, seeing themselves as that party, being complacent.

Personally I prefer my parties to be cautious, flexible and above all competent. My options aren't great, and in any case I feel like most people either don't care about the last two, or they assume a base level of competence even from the most raving and extreme, which I hope will not be proved wrong.

But I'm off. I look forward to fellow leavers not just disagreeing with Mr Meeks, but being offended that he has dared to hold his opinion and it has been uploaded.

I agree. Nobody is offering good administration, right now.

kle4

Estobar said:

This is what political betting could be like:
http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave

And that, Mr Meeks, is the kind of attention to detail and even-handedness which would lift the site considerably from its present doldrums.

It's a little long (although Mr Meeks is criticized when he does do a long one) for the style - this short piece is hardly representative I would say. I would also dispute the doldrums point. I've been on here for years and if anything the quality of headers has increased in the last year, although this one is not my favourite (but then it is a Sunday afternoon)

Plato_Says

"Meanwhile, the insurgent right is currently consumed by the referendum on EU membership. Without even a pretence of coherence...blahblah"

I'd rather Don Brind. I feel I've read the same article a dozen times.

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

Which the market completely ignored. Expensive trading mistake by me.

Plato_Says

"I look down on stupid vulgar people, they disagree with me" would at least be pithy.

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think with all respect you've jumped the shark here with the idea that there is not "even a pretence of coherence" to anyone backing Leave. Re-read (or just read) Michael Gove's piece on why he was backing leave, it was entirely coherent and was on issues of competence not charisma.

To dismiss Gove and others as "the crazies" is shockingly arrogant.

I had made the same point but my "first" was eaten by the "discussion ID required" monster

It's also twice as long as it needs to be to make the necessary points

DavidL

FrancisUrquhart said:

So how many balls will WI win this with to spare?

4 overs I would guess. Or to put it another way England have 16 overs to bowl them out!

Plato_Says

And @Sean_F - no one mentions bias there either.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In your view Mr Meeks only through your eyes.
"Without even a pretence of coherence, they campaign on running away from the complexities of multilateral engagement, variously on immigration, regulation, security concerns or whatever else flits across their minds (how leaving the EU is actually going to help on any of these fronts remains largely unexplored). "

The above statement could also be levelled against the End of Days nonsense that comes out of REMAIN people. But you notice the mote in the eye of LEAVE and ignore the beam in REMAIN's eye.

You should re-read Mr Herdson's recent article on here to look for ways to write an article without your bias spoiling the article.

Speedy

Things are looking surprisingly good for Trump today:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/03/politics/north-dakota-gop-delegates-donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich/index.html?eref=rss_politics

" Donald Trump could be poised for a rare bit of good news in North Dakota, with the possibility he secures the support of at least a handful of the state's 25 delegates being elected Sunday.

North Dakota's lone congressman, Rep. Kevin Cramer, is endorsing Trump Sunday, shortly before North Dakota Republicans began selecting the delegates to the national convention.
Trump adviser Barry Bennett told CNN that "a plurality" on the list of 25 preferred were leaning toward Trump after a strong lobbying effort from Cramer, who Bennett called the Trump operation's "Sherpa" over the course of the hectic weekend.
"We'll be drinking champagne here all day," Bennett said, if the slate of 25 delegates picked by party leaders earlier this weekend passes in the convention. "

JackW

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

TCPoliticalBetting

initforthemoney said:

perhaps mr meeks could tell us which establishment politicians display ideological or policy-based coherence.

Well there is Osborne with his shifting power to the local areas to create "local power houses" whilst removing all schools from local authorities control.....

Or the Govt that says it wants to support steel whilst imposing huge energy charges to deter industries such as steel from using energy and the Govt also complaining about the dumping of steel by china whilst delaying and inhibiting the EU to impose huge tariffs on chinese steel....

Then there is Osborne who offers lower cost incentives to first time buyers of houses which will further boost demand and loosening pension pot rules so that people can take out billions to also buy the same limited housing stock and then Osborne gets worried about the accelerating inflation in the price of houses partly caused by the demand inflated by government measures so he brings in new stamp duty charges and tax increases for higher rate people.....

TCPoliticalBetting

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Tim_B

It is Masters Week at last!

The third 'drive chip and putt' competition is on now for kids 7-15. Hopefully this will bring more kids into the game. It is now in its third year and is being increasingly described as one of the most important days in golf. It has grown hugely. Qualification starts next month at over 250 courses to whittle down the field to 40 girls and 40 boys for 2017. Registration is already open.

It's fantastic fun - you drive and chip in the practice area, but the putting is on the 18th green at Augusta National.

Interviewing parents about how well they expected their son or daughter to do, most of them replied some variant of - it doesn't matter, because we're at Augusta. It doesn't get any better than this.

TCPoliticalBetting

Plato_Says said:

And @Sean_F - no one mentions bias there either.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In your view Mr Meeks only through your eyes.
"Without even a pretence of coherence, they campaign on running away from the complexities of multilateral engagement, variously on immigration, regulation, security concerns or whatever else flits across their minds (how leaving the EU is actually going to help on any of these fronts remains largely unexplored). "

The above statement could also be levelled against the End of Days nonsense that comes out of REMAIN people. But you notice the mote in the eye of LEAVE and ignore the beam in REMAIN's eye.

You should re-read Mr Herdson's recent article on here to look for ways to write an article without your bias spoiling the article.

Yes good point about Sean_F. Interesting that "LEAVE" writers on here produce balanced and less biaised articles....

Plato_Says

If you haven't seen it - Dominic Lawson today is fantastic, points out that HMG have vandalised heavy industry on the altar of greenery. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/our-steel-industry-is-a-small-price-to-pay-for-lower-emissions-isnt-it-wszz50r0f

TCPoliticalBetting said:

initforthemoney said:

perhaps mr meeks could tell us which establishment politicians display ideological or policy-based coherence.

Well there is Osborne with his shifting power to the local areas to create "local power houses" whilst removing all schools from local authorities control.....

Or the Govt that says it wants to support steel whilst imposing huge energy charges to deter industries such as steel from using energy and the Govt also complaining about the dumping of steel by china whilst delaying and inhibiting the EU to impose huge tariffs on chinese steel....

Then there is Osborne who offers lower cost incentives to first time buyers of houses which will further boost demand and loosening pension pot rules so that people can take out billions to also buy the same limited housing stock and then Osborne gets worried about the accelerating inflation in the price of houses partly caused by the demand inflated by government measures so he brings in new stamp duty charges and tax increases for higher rate people.....

TheScreamingEagles

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

[Deleted User]

A good article on the disintegrating establishment by Dan Hodges:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3520986/DAN-HODGES-autopilot-s-gone-Captain-Cameron-EU-vote-bringing-DOWN.html

(thought he wrote in the Telegraph not the Mail???)

ThreeQuidder

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

TheScreamingEagles

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

You are confusing moderators with thread writers.

Speedy

New CBS GOP and Dem polls, caution it's yougov:

Wisconsin

Cruz 43
Trump 37
Kasich 18

Sanders 49
Hillary 47

N.Y.

Trump 52
Cruz 21
Kasich 20

Hillary 53
Sanders 43

Pennsylvania

Trump 47
Cruz 29
Kasich 22

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-gop-divided-april-primaries-loom-ted-cruz-wisconsin-donald-trump-new-york-pennsylvania/

JackW

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

TCPoliticalBetting

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.
1) The Mods don't invite guest threads
2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver
But apart from that spot on.

Unaware that one of you was for LEAVE. It would be hard to conclude that from the content in the articles.
As to the REMAIN vs LEAVE articles
How about from now on having an equal share of articles from each viewpoint over the course of each week?

[Deleted User]

TheScreamingEagles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

You are confusing moderators with thread writers.

Not exactly the most helpful / informative reply TSE. I'm interested to know who PB's resident non traitorous pigdog ( (c) S.Prasaman ）is。

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

ICM's final poll had No with a clear lead and I am not aware it ever had Yes in front

ydoethur

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So how many balls will WI win this with to spare?

4 overs I would guess. Or to put it another way England have 16 overs to bowl them out!

I would guess by 5 wickets with three overs to spare.

The one thing that makes me hesitate is that it doesn't seem to be a boundaries pitch and Windies are rubbish at running singles. But I suspect they will find it a lot easier to get the ball away than England did.

matt

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

The food here is terrible and the portions are so small.

Plato_Says

I can never find the Right Minds section in the Mail, unless its tweeted or appears in my RSS feed. Thanx for linky. He left The Telegraph last month.

Ouch

‘Letting Sajid Javid disappear to Australia just as Tata was going to announce it was selling off the British steel industry was perhaps not the best judgment,’ one Downing Street official candidly acknowledged. That’s candour combined with a flair for understatement.

The Easter recess was supposed to be acting as a political firebreak, holding back and then extinguishing the conflagration caused by Iain Duncan Smith’s post-Budget resignation... The ‘long-term economic strategy’ has been recast as a sinister plan to let the Chinese turn South Wales into an economic wasteland.

And a week that was supposed to see the National Living Wage roll-out underlining the Government’s progressive credentials has ended with Ministers defending themselves against the charge they subsist on the blood of redundant manufacturing workers.

Patrick said:

A good article on the disintegrating establishment by Dan Hodges:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3520986/DAN-HODGES-autopilot-s-gone-Captain-Cameron-EU-vote-bringing-DOWN.html

(thought he wrote in the Telegraph not the Mail???)

HYUFD

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

It also means polling even at this stage may well be right, the consensus seems to be for a narrow Remain lead which seems very plausible

TCPoliticalBetting

Patrick said:

A good article on the disintegrating establishment by Dan Hodges:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3520986/DAN-HODGES-autopilot-s-gone-Captain-Cameron-EU-vote-bringing-DOWN.html

Mr Hodges makes his point about the incoherence in Govt - quoting as an example those who are in the REMAIN camp! More evidence Mr Meeks!
"But the decision to allow the Business Secretary to disappear to the other side of the world was not merely a presentational error. It provided clear evidence that Downing Street was simply not focused on the political, economic and social implications of Tata’s impending decision. The sight of him frantically scrambling back to London closed the case.
To those watching from the outside – and in particular those watching anxiously from Port Talbot, Rotherham, Scunthorpe and the other associated steel communities – this response appears almost criminally negligent.

But to anyone working on the inside of government, it represents all too predictable negligence."

TheScreamingEagles

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

You are confusing moderators with thread writers.

Not exactly the most helpful / informative reply TSE. I'm interested to know who PB's resident non traitorous pigdog ( (c) S.Prasaman ）is。

I'm saying people think Mods commission pieces, they don't.

To get a piece published on PB, you either contact Mike or myself.

Or Mike asks people to write them, or I get people people I think would make great thread writers to join PB as regular irregulars, such as Alastair and Keiran.

Sean_F

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato_Says said:

And @Sean_F - no one mentions bias there either.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In your view Mr Meeks only through your eyes.
"Without even a pretence of coherence, they campaign on running away from the complexities of multilateral engagement, variously on immigration, regulation, security concerns or whatever else flits across their minds (how leaving the EU is actually going to help on any of these fronts remains largely unexplored). "

The above statement could also be levelled against the End of Days nonsense that comes out of REMAIN people. But you notice the mote in the eye of LEAVE and ignore the beam in REMAIN's eye.

You should re-read Mr Herdson's recent article on here to look for ways to write an article without your bias spoiling the article.

Yes good point about Sean_F. Interesting that "LEAVE" writers on here produce balanced and less biaised articles....

Everyone knows what my views are on Brexit. I find it more interesting to write an article on what I expect to see, rather than what I would like to see.

I partly agree with Alistair Meeks about "lack of coherence" but I see that as a strength, rather than a weakness. Different Leave factions can appeal to discrete sections of the electorate.

JackW

matt said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

The food here is terrible and the portions are so small.

Nonsense ... the last thread was replete with sausage of gigantic proportions and quality ..

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

ICM's final poll had No with a clear lead and I am not aware it ever had Yes in front

Well I'm shocked that you don't know the facts about polling, shocked I tell you.

The ICM online poll for the Sunday Telegraph (fieldwork ending the 11th of September 2014) had Yes on 49% and No on 42%

So, 7 days before polling day, ICM had yes 7% ahead

http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2014_ST_scotland_poll.pdf

ThreeQuidder

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

When was the last time a guest header submitted on spec was published?

It's clearly very rare - combine that with multiple reports of submissions going unacknowledged, let alone published, it's clear that "why don't you submit an article?" is an unhelpful suggestion.

TCPoliticalBetting

Plato_Says said:

If you haven't seen it - Dominic Lawson today is fantastic, points out that HMG have vandalised heavy industry on the altar of greenery. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/our-steel-industry-is-a-small-price-to-pay-for-lower-emissions-isnt-it-wszz50r0f

TCPoliticalBetting said:

initforthemoney said:

perhaps mr meeks could tell us which establishment politicians display ideological or policy-based coherence.

Well there is Osborne with his shifting power to the local areas to create "local power houses" whilst removing all schools from local authorities control.....

Or the Govt that says it wants to support steel whilst imposing huge energy charges to deter industries such as steel from using energy and the Govt also complaining about the dumping of steel by china whilst delaying and inhibiting the EU to impose huge tariffs on chinese steel....

Then there is Osborne who offers lower cost incentives to first time buyers of houses which will further boost demand and loosening pension pot rules so that people can take out billions to also buy the same limited housing stock and then Osborne gets worried about the accelerating inflation in the price of houses partly caused by the demand inflated by government measures so he brings in new stamp duty charges and tax increases for higher rate people.....

The inability of our mainstream media be it the News from BBC, ITV, SKY or C4 to bring this up to the fore of EVERY news story on Port T illustrates the inadequacy of our journalism.

In recent years Mines have been shut down in this country mainly because of the climate change followers and they are creating mass unemployment in areas such as Port T.

DavidL

I think people are just depressed about the cricket. Understandable though that is the moaning about Alastair's thread contribution is overdone.

I agree that politics is going through an infantile phase, that far too many people with simplistic solutions to complex problems are being listened to rather than laughed at. The last thread (on one view) shows even the mighty PB is not immune nor is the rather more modest USA.

I also agree that this is a problem because if serious, sober management and government are not rewarded by the electorate then they won't get it and sooner or later the lunatics will get their go at running the asylum.

I do not agree that all those on the side of Leave are examples of the lunatic tendency although I would concede they are not immune from the charge but this applies to both sides. Finally I agree given that no one else is taking government seriously there is an onus on the Conservative party to keep at it and not to get over indulgent.

Alistair

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

ICM's final poll had No with a clear lead and I am not aware it ever had Yes in front

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#2014

10–11 Sep ICM/Sunday Telegraph 705 49% 42% 9% 7%

Mortimer

Joe Root = Bowling hero!

TheScreamingEagles

Jos Buttler should say to Chris Gayle

'Mind those windows Chris'

TheScreamingEagles

Get in

DavidL

Root is a god by the way. And not a minor one either.

TheScreamingEagles

Mortimer said:

Joe Root = Bowling hero!

All us Sheffield lads are heroes

[Deleted User]

TheScreamingEagles said:

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

You are confusing moderators with thread writers.

Not exactly the most helpful / informative reply TSE. I'm interested to know who PB's resident non traitorous pigdog ( (c) S.Prasaman ）is。

I'm saying people think Mods commission pieces, they don't.

To get a piece published on PB, you either contact Mike or myself.

Or Mike asks people to write them, or I get people people I think would make great thread writers to join PB as regular irregulars, such as Alastair and Keiran.

Are we going to need a Paxmanesque 14 times to ask who the Leave moderator is?

TheScreamingEagles

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.

1) The Mods don't invite guest threads

2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver

But apart from that spot on.

Which one? You, Meeks and Smithson are all Remainians, are you not?

You are confusing moderators with thread writers.

Not exactly the most helpful / informative reply TSE. I'm interested to know who PB's resident non traitorous pigdog ( (c) S.Prasaman ）is。

I'm saying people think Mods commission pieces, they don't.

To get a piece published on PB, you either contact Mike or myself.

Or Mike asks people to write them, or I get people people I think would make great thread writers to join PB as regular irregulars, such as Alastair and Keiran.

Are we going to need a Paxmanesque 14 times to ask who the Leave moderator is?

The moderators prefer their anonymity.

Mortimer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mortimer said:

Joe Root = Bowling hero!

All us Sheffield lads are heroes

Always great when events prove us commenters correct.

I wrote the comment after the first wicket. But GAYLE. What a whale wicket to land!

ydoethur

Joe Root blowing a Gayle here.

(That's not an innuendo hung over from the previous thread, BTW.)

JackW

ThreeQuidder said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

When was the last time a guest header submitted on spec was published?

It's clearly very rare - combine that with multiple reports of submissions going unacknowledged, let alone published, it's clear that "why don't you submit an article?" is an unhelpful suggestion.

PB is not unlike any other publishing house - unsolicited manuscripts are clearly less favoured than those from regular authors.

I suggest you or others submit a thread suggestion and offer your services. OGH and TSE have to provide several threads every day and the idea that PB's very own JK Rowling is lurking in the undergrowth with a magical wand would make them both very happy.

ydoethur

JackW said:

lurking in the undergrowth with a magical wand would make them both very happy.

We've already had one thread on that subject, Jack!

ThreeQuidder

JackW said:

ThreeQuidder said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

When was the last time a guest header submitted on spec was published?

It's clearly very rare - combine that with multiple reports of submissions going unacknowledged, let alone published, it's clear that "why don't you submit an article?" is an unhelpful suggestion.

PB is not unlike any other publishing house - unsolicited manuscripts are clearly less favoured than those from regular authors.

I suggest you or others submit a thread suggestion and offer your services. OGH and TSE have to provide several threads every day and the idea that PB's very own JK Rowling is lurking in the undergrowth with a magical wand would make them both very happy.

Regular publishing houses send rejection slips.

TheScreamingEagles

Willey!!!!!

(not a hangover from the previous thread either)

weejonnie

England made the better start to their innings.

Luckyguy1983

This isn't so much commentary as public meltdown. Alistar Meeks' attachment to the EU and what it represents is so emotional and visceral, it feels slightly uncomfortable and voyeuristic to read.

ydoethur

Best innuendo ever in a cricket match involved his father, also against West Indies;

'The bowler's Holding the batsman's Willey'.

Can't remember if it was Arlott or Johnston.

weejonnie

Luckyguy1983 said:

This isn't so much commentary as public meltdown. Alistar Meeks' attachment to the EU and what it represents is so emotional and visceral, it feels slightly uncomfortable and voyeuristic to read.

It's terrible when your cherished beliefs are shown to be the sham that they really are.

JackW

ThreeQuidder said:

JackW said:

ThreeQuidder said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

When was the last time a guest header submitted on spec was published?

It's clearly very rare - combine that with multiple reports of submissions going unacknowledged, let alone published, it's clear that "why don't you submit an article?" is an unhelpful suggestion.

PB is not unlike any other publishing house - unsolicited manuscripts are clearly less favoured than those from regular authors.

I suggest you or others submit a thread suggestion and offer your services. OGH and TSE have to provide several threads every day and the idea that PB's very own JK Rowling is lurking in the undergrowth with a magical wand would make them both very happy.

Regular publishing houses send rejection slips.

And often don't.

Luckyguy1983

TCPoliticalBetting said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Well that's bollocks.
1) The Mods don't invite guest threads
2) One of the mods is a 100% leaver
But apart from that spot on.

Unaware that one of you was for LEAVE. It would be hard to conclude that from the content in the articles.
As to the REMAIN vs LEAVE articles
How about from now on having an equal share of articles from each viewpoint over the course of each week?

I don't think it should really have to be equal - I don't think PB has any role in making the political weather, and if Mike Smithson favours some political standpoints (if that is what's behind the seemingly larger quantity of pro-Remain threads), that's entirely his prerogative.

It would be nice to have more transparency though. But again, not something we can really 'demand' since we use pb free!

ydoethur

Samuels is key now, he's the only batsman with the skill and wish to run singles and manipulate the field. Only problem is I can't imagine Bravo or Ramdin helping him much. They'll rely on hitting boundaries and they will struggle against a side as good at fielding as England are. West Indies haven't lost yet, but they're definitely not hot favourites at the moment.

logical_song

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato_Says said:

If you haven't seen it - Dominic Lawson today is fantastic, points out that HMG have vandalised heavy industry on the altar of greenery. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/our-steel-industry-is-a-small-price-to-pay-for-lower-emissions-isnt-it-wszz50r0f

TCPoliticalBetting said:

initforthemoney said:

perhaps mr meeks could tell us which establishment politicians display ideological or policy-based coherence.

Well there is Osborne with his shifting power to the local areas to create "local power houses" whilst removing all schools from local authorities control.....

Or the Govt that says it wants to support steel whilst imposing huge energy charges to deter industries such as steel from using energy and the Govt also complaining about the dumping of steel by china whilst delaying and inhibiting the EU to impose huge tariffs on chinese steel....

Then there is Osborne who offers lower cost incentives to first time buyers of houses which will further boost demand and loosening pension pot rules so that people can take out billions to also buy the same limited housing stock and then Osborne gets worried about the accelerating inflation in the price of houses partly caused by the demand inflated by government measures so he brings in new stamp duty charges and tax increases for higher rate people.....

The inability of our mainstream media be it the News from BBC, ITV, SKY or C4 to bring this up to the fore of EVERY news story on Port T illustrates the inadequacy of our journalism.

In recent years Mines have been shut down in this country mainly because of the climate change followers and they are creating mass unemployment in areas such as Port T.

Isn't it supply and demand and Chinese economies of scale coupled with their command economy that's mainly the problem with steel production in this country?

SimonStClare

'The disintegrating establishment' - Just a tad hyperbolic IMHO, if not downright daft.

not_on_fire

I'm pro remain but also found this article had far too much personal bias in it. There are charlatans and incoherent arguments on both sides of the argument.

TheWhiteRabbit

Why not go all in Alastair?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

TheScreamingEagles

Another Yorkshire player takes a wicket.

DavidL

This is getting interesting...

Or not.

TheScreamingEagles

Oh balls

TheScreamingEagles

Bairstow would have caught that cleanly.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bairstow would have caught that cleanly.

I think it was out. But these camera angles always make it look like a bounce.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bairstow would have caught that cleanly.

I think it was out. But these camera angles always make it look like a bounce.

It was, years ago Sky did a demo about how the zoom distorts perceptions, even on clean catches.

DavidL

Are green gloves a good plan?

Richard_Tyndall

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Why not go all in Alastair?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Ah my favourite poet.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bairstow would have caught that cleanly.

I think it was out. But these camera angles always make it look like a bounce.

It was, years ago Sky did a demo about how the zoom distorts perceptions, even on clean catches.

Yes, I remember that. This bounced up but from the fingers or the gloves? Red gloves would perhaps have made it clearer one way or another. As long as Samuels are there WI are still favourites.

Luckyguy1983

SimonStClare said:

'The disintegrating establishment' - Just a tad hyperbolic IMHO, if not downright daft.

I read the thread title and thought - hmmm, that sounds an interesting thread. Sadly it wasn't.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

ICM's final poll had No with a clear lead and I am not aware it ever had Yes in front

Well I'm shocked that you don't know the facts about polling, shocked I tell you.

The ICM online poll for the Sunday Telegraph (fieldwork ending the 11th of September 2014) had Yes on 49% and No on 42%

So, 7 days before polling day, ICM had yes 7% ahead

http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2014_ST_scotland_poll.pdf

That was not excluding undecideds and online but still only 1 poll and ICM still had No ahead in their final poll

runnymede

Another slice of smug, arrogant condescension.

Richard_Tyndall

ThreeQuidder said:

JackW said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Those who are critical of thread leaders always have the option of penning their own disinterested narrative.

Do pb moderators (all for REMAIN) invite the articles?

Write one and find out.

Essentially thread leaders have to be coherent and with a nod to betting (clue in site title) but impartiality is not a requirement and the comments section clearly allows for substantial counter argument.

Perish the thought it might drive up site traffic ..

When was the last time a guest header submitted on spec was published?

It's clearly very rare - combine that with multiple reports of submissions going unacknowledged, let alone published, it's clear that "why don't you submit an article?" is an unhelpful suggestion.

At the beginning of the referendum campaign I was inspired to write a thread header one evening.

I submitted it to the mods (actually I think to Robert or TSE) and it was published the following morning. I certainly don't think I am unique in that and I think you will find that Alistair (back in his Antifrank days) similarly just submitted his first thread header on spec and then chose to follow it up with more after it had been accepted.

I don't get the impression that anyone is rejected outright just because of who they are and I have certainly been highly critical of Mike in the past so I am probably a case in point.

HYUFD

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.

Punters BELIEVE phone polls are more accurate.

The internet was, however, far more accurate in identifying the Right/Left divide last May.

It's also the case that the majority of polls underscored the independence position at this point in both the 2014 Euros and 2014 SIndy.

Opinium 10/10 to vote (65% turnout) Leave 54 / Remain 46.

ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result

ICM was

Yes: 34%
No: 45%
Undecided: 21%

Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.

3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided

That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.

We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.

The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling

That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.

However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.

He also ignores the fact a few days before the Indyref, ICM gave Yes a substantial lead.

ICM's final poll had No with a clear lead and I am not aware it ever had Yes in front

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#2014

10–11 Sep ICM/Sunday Telegraph 705 49% 42% 9% 7%

Online and a Sunday Telegraph poll the 55 45 poll was phone I believe and for Scotland on Sunday so not comparing like with like

Sean_F

On the subject of the establishment losing its hold, for decades, voters have expected steady growth in living standards, and have come to view it as the norm. In return, they've voted for moderate centre right or social democratic politicians. Now, they see that living standards have stagnated. Worse, they see the benefits of globalisation going to a narrow section of the population, while the costs fall on the majority of the population.

So, is it any wonder that they're losing faith in the establishment, if the establishment can't deliver the goods?

Richard_Tyndall

I actually think this is a a fine article. I don't necessarily agree with it all but I don't think the basic analysis of the current situation is that far wrong.

Labour have made themselves unelectable at present. I currently don't see any mechanism by which they can change this before the next election.

The Tories are in disarray over the referendum and it is impacting other areas.

Where I disagree with Alistair is over where the blame lies with the Tory problems. The Cabinet is not an example of good administration at the moment and the blame for that lies squarely with Cameron. He set the tone for this campaign with the way he treated ministers and MPs who chose to take the other side. He is the one who has presided over an increasingly disfunctional Government where he has attempted to prevent Ministers continuing their normal duties by cutting them off from their own departments.

So at the moment I would suggest the situation is actually worse than Alistair suggests.

The important question is whether the only party that really seems to have any chance of sorting itself out over the next year and who we need to govern the country for the next 4 years can do so once the referendum is decided.

simoninthehills

Perhaps the recent electoral consequences for the Liberal Democrats of supporting 'good administration' provided a chilling warning for this generation of politicians.

I agree. Nobody is offering good administration, right now.

Cyclefree

O/T for @ Roger: if you're going to make statements about the BDS movement, you might try doing some research first. Try this for a bit about its history and who's behind it - http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-january-february-2016-jonathan-neumann-israel-boycott-divest-sanction-bds-threatens-us-all.

Incidentally, despite the fact that I am a pretty fierce critic of his party's leader, I appreciated @NickPalmer's rather more thoughtful views on the anti-Semitism and the Labour Party question on the previous thread.

It is of course true that one should be able to criticise Israel without being thought of as anti- Semitic. Those who respond to any criticism of Israel in such a way do her no favours. It is also equally true that there are plenty who have alighted with glee on the anti-Zionist banner precisely because it does allow them to make anti-Semitic statements under the guise of anti-Zionism. They are not acting in good faith. And it is also striking how many people who criticise Israel for all variety of matters are strangely silent when even worse instances of the same matters are committed by other states. The double standards on display make one wonder exactly what the motivation is

TheScreamingEagles

Sam Billings you [moderated]

PClipp

Sean_F said:

Everyone knows what my views are on Brexit. I find it more interesting to write an article on what I expect to see, rather than what I would like to see.

I partly agree with Alistair Meeks about "lack of coherence" but I see that as a strength, rather than a weakness. Different Leave factions can appeal to discrete sections of the electorate.

Yes, but...

What happens when LEAVE win?

What decision have we come to?

ThreeQuidder

PClipp said:

Sean_F said:

Everyone knows what my views are on Brexit. I find it more interesting to write an article on what I expect to see, rather than what I would like to see.

I partly agree with Alistair Meeks about "lack of coherence" but I see that as a strength, rather than a weakness. Different Leave factions can appeal to discrete sections of the electorate.

Yes, but...

What happens when LEAVE win

The government decides what happens next.

Sean_F

PClipp said:

Sean_F said:

Everyone knows what my views are on Brexit. I find it more interesting to write an article on what I expect to see, rather than what I would like to see.

I partly agree with Alistair Meeks about "lack of coherence" but I see that as a strength, rather than a weakness. Different Leave factions can appeal to discrete sections of the electorate.

Yes, but...

What happens when LEAVE win?

What decision have we come to?

At the very least, a decision that we will no longer be part of a process of Europe-wide political integration. Maybe we actually took that decision when we stayed out of the Euro, and a Leave vote would simply be ratifying that.

I don't know if British politics would then move in a rightward or leftward direction.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sam Billings you [moderated]

England have just not taken enough wickets. They created a few half chances but didn't take them. They need Samuels now.

TheScreamingEagles

I love me some Willey.

ydoethur

Why is Billings on the field?

Samuels is still the key here. As he was when they won before.

TheScreamingEagles

I Really DO love me some Willey.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

I love me some Willey.

As we saw this morning!