I made mid three figures off the mugs betting on Rubio.
"Marco Rubio came third so moved to odds on favourite."
A sentance I can never repeat often enough with enough incredulity.
I think the people betting on Hillary after around 1am on election night were the biggest mugs of the whole race. They were literally betting on the outcome they wanted, not what was unfolding from real vote counts.
I expect Melenchon is a temporary blip as voters thrash around looking for who to vote for this time - as clearly no one is the obvious choice of the majority. I am covered on him, but still expect it to be Le Pen vs Macron in the final.
I expect Melenchon is a temporary blip as voters thrash around looking for who to vote for this time - as clearly no one is the obvious choice of the majority. I am covered on him, but still expect it to be Le Pen vs Macron in the final.
Melenchon likely to be held back from appearing in the top two as long as Hamon sticks around. Hamon's campaign has become the butt of jokes all over french TV (basically classing him with all the mini candidates like Lassalle and Poutou). He is already being humiliated and should really drop out to seem that he is supporting part of a wider movement, rather than achieving the worst ever socialist party score.
Poutou is the other problem for Melenchon. He's on Jean Jacques Bourdin (the French Paxman) this morning and is coming across very unpresidential and unstatesmanlike, but in a good way - he is, unsurprisingly, the only candidate who genuinely seems like a man of the people (doesn't speak in platitudes etc). I think he could get enough votes in the 1st round to deny Melenchon a top 2 position as well.
The key advantage favouring Fillon is his support comes mainly from pensioners who vote, Melenchon, Le Pen and especially Macron supporters tend to be younger
On its first point about 9 of the candidates would bankrupt the country, that surely requires them to actually do what they say, which I doubt is a given. The rest appears to be mostly 'fillion is being treated unfairly' which I don't think needed so much space to say.
Melenchon likely to be held back from appearing in the top two as long as Hamon sticks around. Hamon's campaign has become the butt of jokes all over french TV (basically classing him with all the mini candidates like Lassalle and Poutou). He is already being humiliated and should really drop out to seem that he is supporting part of a wider movement, rather than achieving the worst ever socialist party score.
Poutou is the other problem for Melenchon. He's on Jean Jacques Bourdin (the French Paxman) this morning and is coming across very unpresidential and unstatesmanlike, but in a good way - he is, unsurprisingly, the only candidate who genuinely seems like a man of the people (doesn't speak in platitudes etc). I think he could get enough votes in the 1st round to deny Melenchon a top 2 position as well.
The PS are also looking to the legislative elections and cannot afford to have no candidate in the presidential race (albeit Macron is an unofficial PS candidate having been Hollande's Finance Minister)
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
South West trains have been pretty reliable for me recently from Woking..nothing can be as bad as Southern. (I say this as i move slowly along the track toward Surbiton - which is chaotic this morning)
On its first point about 9 of the candidates would bankrupt the country, that surely requires them to actually do what they say, which I doubt is a given. The rest appears to be mostly 'fillion is being treated unfairly' which I don't think needed so much space to say.
The point about Macron supporters expecting Fillon voters to vote tactically for their man to keep Melenchon from the runoff with Le Pen when the Macron campaign has all but said Fillon should be in jail is an astute one though
The French centre-right have made a complete mess of what should have been an easy win for them. It now seems some British Conservatives feel they have to rally to Fillon's defence as well. Presumably, if he is such a good bet to make the last two, you'll all be lumping on at what must now look fantastic prices.
The fact is after the disaster that was Hollande, the French centre-right only had to find a candidate with a functioning brain cell to get to the last two and trounce a Le Pen in the run off - yet they choose Francois Fillon.
Even when his foibles were revealed (ooer !), instead of dumping him or persuading him to fall on his sword to be replaced by Juppe who has all the charisma of a cold rice pudding but nonetheless would still have got to the run off and beaten Le Pen, the French conservatives dithered, gave Fillon another chance and he's floundered again.
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
The French centre-right have made a complete mess of what should have been an easy win for them. It now seems some British Conservatives feel they have to rally to Fillon's defence as well. Presumably, if he is such a good bet to make the last two, you'll all be lumping on at what must now look fantastic prices.
The fact is after the disaster that was Hollande, the French centre-right only had to find a candidate with a functioning brain cell to get to the last two and trounce a Le Pen in the run off - yet they choose Francois Fillon.
Even when his foibles were revealed (ooer !), instead of dumping him or persuading him to fall on his sword to be replaced by Juppe who has all the charisma of a cold rice pudding but nonetheless would still have got to the run off and beaten Le Pen, the French conservatives dithered, gave Fillon another chance and he's floundered again.
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
Yesterday Melenchon was saying he wants no more free trade deals like CETA.
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
This seems to be the last hope of the French centre-right this morning. The polls are wrong, the pensioners will come out and support us.
From what little I know of French demographics and electoral statistics, I thought FN did very well among pensioners as well. Isn't Fillon's problem he isn't the only game in town with the older voters ?
Let me ask you directly, as a Conservative supporter, who do YOU want to win the French election ? Fillon or Le Pen ?
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
This seems to be the last hope of the French centre-right this morning. The polls are wrong, the pensioners will come out and support us.
From what little I know of French demographics and electoral statistics, I thought FN did very well among pensioners as well. Isn't Fillon's problem he isn't the only game in town with the older voters ?
Let me ask you directly, as a Conservative supporter, who do YOU want to win the French election ? Fillon or Le Pen ?
FN has a younger demographic.
I don't really care who wins - I don't think it affects negotiations as much as Remainers seem to want to paint it. All that said, Macron seems like hype squared and incredibly flashy and panny. I'm all green, but layed Macron out to just £ 0.84.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
This seems to be the last hope of the French centre-right this morning. The polls are wrong, the pensioners will come out and support us.
From what little I know of French demographics and electoral statistics, I thought FN did very well among pensioners as well. Isn't Fillon's problem he isn't the only game in town with the older voters ?
Let me ask you directly, as a Conservative supporter, who do YOU want to win the French election ? Fillon or Le Pen ?
Of the two, Fillon would be closer to my opinions, Le Pen would be the more useful to the UK, so on balance, the latter.
The French centre-right have made a complete mess of what should have been an easy win for them. It now seems some British Conservatives feel they have to rally to Fillon's defence as well. Presumably, if he is such a good bet to make the last two, you'll all be lumping on at what must now look fantastic prices.
The fact is after the disaster that was Hollande, the French centre-right only had to find a candidate with a functioning brain cell to get to the last two and trounce a Le Pen in the run off - yet they choose Francois Fillon.
Even when his foibles were revealed (ooer !), instead of dumping him or persuading him to fall on his sword to be replaced by Juppe who has all the charisma of a cold rice pudding but nonetheless would still have got to the run off and beaten Le Pen, the French conservatives dithered, gave Fillon another chance and he's floundered again.
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
Probably not. What I also do in my current day job is attend countless bloody meetings and this morning is no exception. ;-)
I posted this yesterday morning, but am re-posting here as we now have a Melenchon thread. I have added point 6:
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
6. It seems to be a misconception that Melenchon's momentum will come to a halt because he has already squeezed Hamon's support about as much as he can. Certainly over half of his improvement has been at Hamons expense, but not all. If you compare just about any poll from a Company from 2-3 weeks ago with their most current poll you will see that not all his increase has come at the expense of Hamon. The rest has probably come from undecided supporters not previously aligned with any candidate and there are a lot of them. (See point 2)
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
I don't really understand the attitude that if my politics is X then I should naturally support a foreign candidate whose politics is closest to X. Surely we should support the candidate whose policies most closely support the achievement of our own overall objectives. In the case of France we would probably get the best Brexit deal if Le Pen wins, whether or not you like her or her politics.
The French centre-right have made a complete mess of what should have been an easy win for them. It now seems some British Conservatives feel they have to rally to Fillon's defence as well. Presumably, if he is such a good bet to make the last two, you'll all be lumping on at what must now look fantastic prices.
The fact is after the disaster that was Hollande, the French centre-right only had to find a candidate with a functioning brain cell to get to the last two and trounce a Le Pen in the run off - yet they choose Francois Fillon.
Even when his foibles were revealed (ooer !), instead of dumping him or persuading him to fall on his sword to be replaced by Juppe who has all the charisma of a cold rice pudding but nonetheless would still have got to the run off and beaten Le Pen, the French conservatives dithered, gave Fillon another chance and he's floundered again.
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
If Melenchon won never mind Corbyn going to France, half of Paris would be in London
I don't really understand the attitude that if my politics is X then I should naturally support a foreign candidate whose politics is closest to X. Surely we should support the candidate whose policies most closely support our own overall objectives. In the case of France we would probably get the best Brexit deal if Le Pen wins, whether or not you like her or her politics.
I'm not at all sure that a President Le Pen would mean a good Brexit deal for Britain. Le Pen would do what she thinks best for France not Britain and her approval or otherwise of Brexit is only because she sees it as helping her not us.
But setting that aside for a moment, surely it is not in the UK's interest to have one of its very close neighbours and allies being governed by someone leading a party with fascist tendencies and antecedents and whose leader was reported this weekend as making the sorts of comments about Jews which would have us (some of us, anyway) in conniptions if made by the Leader of the Opposition here?
Britain stands up to fascism - or used to anyway. Why would we welcome it coming back to the European continent?
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
Fillon would give us little better a Brexit deal than Macron, Le Pen is the only Brexit supporter but I think Fillon will outperform the polls as his voters are older and more likely to vote
This seems to be the last hope of the French centre-right this morning. The polls are wrong, the pensioners will come out and support us.
From what little I know of French demographics and electoral statistics, I thought FN did very well among pensioners as well. Isn't Fillon's problem he isn't the only game in town with the older voters ?
Let me ask you directly, as a Conservative supporter, who do YOU want to win the French election ? Fillon or Le Pen ?
Fillon is on 38% with the over 65s. If I was French I would vote for Fillon and then probably Macron against Le Pen but as Patrick states Le Pen was the only Brexit supporter
I don't really understand the attitude that if my politics is X then I should naturally support a foreign candidate whose politics is closest to X. Surely we should support the candidate whose policies most closely support our own overall objectives. In the case of France we would probably get the best Brexit deal if Le Pen wins, whether or not you like her or her politics.
I'm not at all sure that a President Le Pen would mean a good Brexit deal for Britain. Le Pen would do what she thinks best for France not Britain and her approval or otherwise of Brexit is only because she sees it as helping her not us.
But setting that aside for a moment, surely it is not in the UK's interest to have one of its very close neighbours and allies being governed by someone leading a party with fascist tendencies and antecedents and whose leader was reported this weekend as making the sorts of comments about Jews which would have us (some of us, anyway) in conniptions if made by the Leader of the Opposition here?
Britain stands up to fascism - or used to anyway. Why would we welcome it coming back to the European continent?
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
Probably not. What I also do in my current day job is attend countless bloody meetings and this morning is no exception. ;-)
Fair enough. But if you look at the level of modelling, and "behaviour prediction" if you like used by big companies to sell you stuff, It's staggering - and kind of creepy - how much they know about what you do, and what you're going to do in future. Applying that level of analysis to politics would make current polling - "How are you going to vote on such and such a day?" seem pretty crude. On the other hand, big companies can do what they do because they have in spending terms, a detailed record of your behaviour - but nobody has the same level of information about how you actually voted (at least I hope not).
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
Bizarre post. Judgement without evidence is just opinion and not judgement at all.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
Thanks. To be fair we are lucky with SWT - a lot of passengers are nervous about First MTR taking over the franchise in August.
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
But as has been said what people actually do is vote, so there is a finite number of tickable boxes (n+2, where n is the number of candidates and the other two are did not vote, and spoiled ballot).
As well as tactical opinion poll answering we should also be on the lookout for what one might call satirical voting - e.g. a Trump-hater voting for him in the hope that he gets in and his presidency is so disastrous that it destroys the credibility of the alt right.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
So we should not measure the death rates of the patients of surgeons? And try to improve the performance of the worst?
Or look at infection rates in hospitals..? And let patients know what they are?
(I looked at the latter when my wife had the first of her two hip ops.. We chose to run away from our local hospitals. Unsurprisingly they not only had high infection rates but also poor standards of care..Now much improved). Her ops were excellent and trouble free)
Fillon is on 38% with the over 65s. If I was French I would vote for Fillon and then probably Macron against Le Pen but as Patrick states Le Pen was the only Brexit supporter
Yet below 20% overall. The key is turnout. After all, the Conservatives "won" the 2001 election among older people but they were crushed overall. A big vote in one sector (if they turn out) is little help if his figures elsewhere are dire.
We'll see.
As for Le Pen, her problem is holding together the huge contradictions of FN. Some FN supporters are economically liberal, others aren't. In one breath, Le Pen talks about protecting the 35-hour working week and safeguarding the pensions and other benefits enjoyed by French civil servants and in the next she's talking about a bonfire of regulation though she also wants protectionism.
The internal contradictions of "economic patriotism" are laid bare.
It's like pretending to be on the side of working people and then raising their taxes....
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
Bizarre post. Judgement without evidence is just opinion and not judgement at all.
Evidence is fine. But opinion based on skill and experience and knowledge and expertise is worthwhile, unfashionable as it may be, these days, to say so.
Box-ticking is not evidence. For example, ticking a box saying that a person has read a document does not show you whether they have understood it. How do you assess that? There are ways of doing this but they involve some element of assessment and thought and, yes, judgment. Too often the latter are undervalued or ignored and all the focus is on the action taken i.e. the reading of the document in my example.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
So we should not measure the death rates of the patients of surgeons? And try to improve the performance of the worst?
Or look at infection rates in hospitals..? And let patients know what they are?
(I looked at the latter when my wife had the first of her two hip ops.. We chose to run away from our local hospitals. Unsurprisingly they not only had high infection rates but also poor standards of care..Now much improved). Her ops were excellent and trouble free)
Of course you can measure. But how do you assess that information? The surgeon may have a worse death rate because he/she takes on the most difficult cases. So he may not be the worst surgeon.
Collecting information is fine. But it is not the end of the matter. You have to really read it; you have to really understand it; and then you have to act on it. Too often people think that the mere collection of information is enough without any intelligent attempt at understand what it is telling you. And what it is not telling you. And what weight to put on it. It is also foolish - and may be dangerous - to rely only on one source of information.
The markets seem to be assuming that the mad populist is going to get into the 2nd round at the expense of the sensible centrist rather than the other mad populist
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
Bizarre post. Judgement without evidence is just opinion and not judgement at all.
Evidence is fine. But opinion based on skill and experience and knowledge and expertise is worthwhile, unfashionable as it may be, these days, to say so.
Box-ticking is not evidence. For example, ticking a box saying that a person has read a document does not show you whether they have understood it. How do you assess that? There are ways of doing this but they involve some element of assessment and thought and, yes, judgment. Too often the latter are undervalued or ignored and all the focus is on the action taken i.e. the reading of the document in my example.
You present an entirely false dichotomy. You need both evidence and experience.
One without the other leads to mistakes. I have seen the most serious mistakes come from someone who claims experience assuming they've seen something before.
The genuinely most experienced people know that they know nothing, keep a fresh mind and act according to evidence.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
Thanks. To be fair we are lucky with SWT - a lot of passengers are nervous about First MTR taking over the franchise in August.
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
That's normal on Southern trains. You wait 'til you have guards stop the train, phone the signal box on their mobile, to get them to change the points so that the train can proceed as advertised.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
So we should not measure the death rates of the patients of surgeons? And try to improve the performance of the worst?
Or look at infection rates in hospitals..? And let patients know what they are?
(I looked at the latter when my wife had the first of her two hip ops.. We chose to run away from our local hospitals. Unsurprisingly they not only had high infection rates but also poor standards of care..Now much improved). Her ops were excellent and trouble free)
Of course you can measure. But how do you assess that information? The surgeon may have a worse death rate because he/she takes on the most difficult cases. So he may not be the worst surgeon.
Collecting information is fine. But it is not the end of the matter. You have to really read it; you have to really understand it; and then you have to act on it. Too often people think that the mere collection of information is enough without any intelligent attempt at understand what it is telling you. And what it is not telling you. And what weight to put on it. It is also foolish - and may be dangerous - to rely only on one source of information.
The trouble with many targets is that there is often more than one way to improve the result, with the unintended ways often being easier to achieve than the intended improvement in actual performance. Cf. New Labour, RIP.
Melenchon or Macron @ 59% of the market is massive.
I can understand Fillon's price, up to a point. There is a chance that he is being under-rated by polls because there is a sizeable chunk of shy Fillon supporters who are wary of voicing their support for a man who is accused of acting illegally and milking the public purse. There is also the daily straw to clutch, in the form of the Opinionway rolling poll, which generally shows Fillon 2-3% higher than most of the other polls.
Le Pen's price is more difficult to understand. Her best chance of winning is to face Fillon in round 2 and the odds of that happening are probably greater than Le Pen's current odds of being President. And even then she would be the outsider of the two. It's not even as if her support is growing at all, she was polling 26-27 before the first TV debate and has dropped 2 or 3 points since then.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
The nationalised Network Rail letting down the passengers of a privatised TOC, again ...
Still better than Hatfield, Potters Bar, etc.
So all of BR's many crashes and balls-ups don't count?
I think it's better for engineering work to be done and complete (even if it runs over budget/time) rather than rushed to meet some incentive or other. I am sure you agree with that. I was just pointing out that there are worse things than delays.
The markets seem to be assuming that the mad populist is going to get into the 2nd round at the expense of the sensible centrist rather than the other mad populist
I think that is not correct.
I'm with you. I think there will be a lot of Le Pen -> Melenchon switchers.
She really suffered from just being just one of a number of anti-establishment candidates in the debates, and now the momentum is all against her. Now, right at the worst moment, she's retoxified her party with a row over the details of the holocaust.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
So we should not measure the death rates of the patients of surgeons? And try to improve the performance of the worst?
Or look at infection rates in hospitals..? And let patients know what they are?
(I looked at the latter when my wife had the first of her two hip ops.. We chose to run away from our local hospitals. Unsurprisingly they not only had high infection rates but also poor standards of care..Now much improved). Her ops were excellent and trouble free)
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements. Death rates for surgeons is a classic example, as relying on it as performance indicator can make a surgeon who specialises in high risk procedures like heart surgery look worse than he is. It can even create a perverse incentive for surgeons to avoid operating on the most sick patients altogether. Tim Harford's book "Messy" even cites cases in the US of surgeons performing unnecessary procedures on healthy patients just to make their survival rates look better. Even measuring infection rates in hospitals can be misleading without knowing the circumstances: for example does the hospital have a higher than usual proportion of patients particularly vulnerable to infection, such as the very young or very old?
I'm with Cyclefree on box-ticking in general. There is a great temptation to be guided by things that can easily be measured just because they can be measured. You can take steps to improve the figures - for example you can cut waiting list times at the expense of emergency care, or by making fake appointments. But improving the figures in itself doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a better job.
The markets seem to be assuming that the mad populist is going to get into the 2nd round at the expense of the sensible centrist rather than the other mad populist
I think that is not correct.
I'm with you. I think there will be a lot of Le Pen -> Melenchon switchers.
She really suffered from just being just one of a number of anti-establishment candidates in the debates, and now the momentum is all against her. Now, right at the worst moment, she's retoxified her party with a row over the details of the holocaust.
Collecting information is fine. But it is not the end of the matter. You have to really read it; you have to really understand it; and then you have to act on it. Too often people think that the mere collection of information is enough without any intelligent attempt at understand what it is telling you. And what it is not telling you.
A bit like the online world these days - lots of figures are collected but very few people have any clue what they really mean, or if they mean anything at all.
You are not the only one suffering a dose of cynicism this morning
Poutou is the other problem for Melenchon. He's on Jean Jacques Bourdin (the French Paxman) this morning and is coming across very unpresidential and unstatesmanlike, but in a good way - he is, unsurprisingly, the only candidate who genuinely seems like a man of the people (doesn't speak in platitudes etc). I think he could get enough votes in the 1st round to deny Melenchon a top 2 position as well.
Poutou is available at 1000.0, I think he's a better bet than Hamon as he is at least going forwards ! (I've had £4 on)
Who'd have thought, the main PS candidate at 570.0 on Betfair 2 weeks out and not looking anything like value ?
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements. Death rates for surgeons is a classic example, as relying on it as performance indicator can make a surgeon who specialises in high risk procedures like heart surgery look worse than he is. It can even create a perverse incentive for surgeons to avoid operating on the most sick patients altogether. Tim Harford's book "Messy" even cites cases in the US of surgeons performing unnecessary procedures on healthy patients just to make their survival rates look better. Even measuring infection rates in hospitals can be misleading without knowing the circumstances: for example does the hospital have a higher than usual proportion of patients particularly vulnerable to infection, such as the very young or very old?
I'm with Cyclefree on box-ticking in general. There is a great temptation to be guided by things that can easily be measured just because they can be measured. You can take steps to improve the figures - for example you can cut waiting list times at the expense of emergency care, or by making fake appointments. But improving the figures in itself doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a better job.
This conversation illustrates why we need more good scientists in government and industry management. This stuff is bread and butter. We know how to solve it.
There needs to be more thought to this phenomena of flakey polls where people say they will vote one way to make a point, but ultimately do something very different.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
Sounds like it is. But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote. Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
I am in a somewhat cynical (sour, even) mood today for reasons completely unrelated to PB.
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
Bizarre post. Judgement without evidence is just opinion and not judgement at all.
Evidence is fine. But opinion based on skill and experience and knowledge and expertise is worthwhile, unfashionable as it may be, these days, to say so.
Box-ticking is not evidence. For example, ticking a box saying that a person has read a document does not show you whether they have understood it. How do you assess that? There are ways of doing this but they involve some element of assessment and thought and, yes, judgment. Too often the latter are undervalued or ignored and all the focus is on the action taken i.e. the reading of the document in my example.
I have seen the most serious mistakes come from someone who claims experience assuming they've seen something before.
The genuinely most experienced people know that they know nothing, keep a fresh mind and act according to evidence.
That is judgement.
I absolutely agree with what you say in these two sentences and was not trying to say anything different. The best people in life know that they always have something to learn and are always learning.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
Thanks. To be fair we are lucky with SWT - a lot of passengers are nervous about First MTR taking over the franchise in August.
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
That's normal on Southern trains. You wait 'til you have guards stop the train, phone the signal box on their mobile, to get them to change the points so that the train can proceed as advertised.
Many years ago when I used to catch a diesel train from Eridge to London (only 1 went all the way to London in the morning, rest stopped at Oxted where you would change for an electric train) we had the issue of wrong type of snow stopping the electric trains.
I caught the train as normal but it terminated at Oxted and we were thrown off to catch an electric train (sort of counter intuitive). I asked why if the snow issue was with the electric trains. I was told that this train always terminated here. I pointed out that I caught it everyday and it did no such thing. I was told it did. After a bit of 'It did', 'It did not' exchange it was pointed out to me that there was no through train on a Saturday. I pointed out it was Tuesday to be told we are running a Saturday service today. I gave up at that point.
For the next week or so we never saw a train at all at Eridge. Every day I was told the trains would return tomorrow. They didn't. Rumour had it that the diesels were pinched to service 'more important' lines suffering from the snow.
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements.
Testing of schoolchildren is another area that seems to suffer from this. Are we trying to measure the child's aptitude and attainment, or the teacher's diligence?
I don't really understand the attitude that if my politics is X then I should naturally support a foreign candidate whose politics is closest to X. Surely we should support the candidate whose policies most closely support our own overall objectives. In the case of France we would probably get the best Brexit deal if Le Pen wins, whether or not you like her or her politics.
I'm not at all sure that a President Le Pen would mean a good Brexit deal for Britain. Le Pen would do what she thinks best for France not Britain and her approval or otherwise of Brexit is only because she sees it as helping her not us.
But setting that aside for a moment, surely it is not in the UK's interest to have one of its very close neighbours and allies being governed by someone leading a party with fascist tendencies and antecedents and whose leader was reported this weekend as making the sorts of comments about Jews which would have us (some of us, anyway) in conniptions if made by the Leader of the Opposition here?
Britain stands up to fascism - or used to anyway. Why would we welcome it coming back to the European continent?
+1. But some conservatives have always been prepared to turn a blind-eye to fascist tendencies if it suits their short term political interests. Those who don't learn from history etc etc.
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements.
Testing of schoolchildren is another area that seems to suffer from this. Are we trying to measure the child's aptitude and attainment, or the teacher's diligence?
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements.
Testing of schoolchildren is another area that seems to suffer from this. Are we trying to measure the child's aptitude and attainment, or the teacher's diligence?
Another area that risks being missed is a child's potential. If you only measure what a child has achieved you risk missing what they may be capable of, what might be worth them pursuing, what might spark an interest. There should be space for serendipity in a child's life - and in an adult one's too.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
Thanks. To be fair we are lucky with SWT - a lot of passengers are nervous about First MTR taking over the franchise in August.
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
Generally, some of the best performing rail networks are those that are nationalised – London Overground, TfL Rail and Merseyrail. The big private operators are, by and large, lousy. Funny that – running a fundamentally loss-making public service at an artificial 'profit' and at huge cost to the taxpayer, then privatising the engineered 'gains', doesn't work.
Can anyone explain what franchising is for? No. Get rid.
Measuring things is fine but you have to be very careful what you do with the measurements. Death rates for surgeons is a classic example, as relying on it as performance indicator can make a surgeon who specialises in high risk procedures like heart surgery look worse than he is. It can even create a perverse incentive for surgeons to avoid operating on the most sick patients altogether. Tim Harford's book "Messy" even cites cases in the US of surgeons performing unnecessary procedures on healthy patients just to make their survival rates look better. Even measuring infection rates in hospitals can be misleading without knowing the circumstances: for example does the hospital have a higher than usual proportion of patients particularly vulnerable to infection, such as the very young or very old?
I'm with Cyclefree on box-ticking in general. There is a great temptation to be guided by things that can easily be measured just because they can be measured. You can take steps to improve the figures - for example you can cut waiting list times at the expense of emergency care, or by making fake appointments. But improving the figures in itself doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a better job.
This conversation illustrates why we need more good scientists in government and industry management. This stuff is bread and butter. We know how to solve it.
To be honest, the hubris like cast iron certainty of posts like that suggest we need far more arts grads in both.
Holding out the hand of brotherly commuter solidarity from a Southern train. I know your pain.
Thanks. To be fair we are lucky with SWT - a lot of passengers are nervous about First MTR taking over the franchise in August.
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
That's normal on Southern trains. You wait 'til you have guards stop the train, phone the signal box on their mobile, to get them to change the points so that the train can proceed as advertised.
Many years ago when I used to catch a diesel train from Eridge to London (only 1 went all the way to London in the morning, rest stopped at Oxted where you would change for an electric train) we had the issue of wrong type of snow stopping the electric trains.
I caught the train as normal but it terminated at Oxted and we were thrown off to catch an electric train (sort of counter intuitive). I asked why if the snow issue was with the electric trains. I was told that this train always terminated here. I pointed out that I caught it everyday and it did no such thing. I was told it did. After a bit of 'It did', 'It did not' exchange it was pointed out to me that there was no through train on a Saturday. I pointed out it was Tuesday to be told we are running a Saturday service today. I gave up at that point.
For the next week or so we never saw a train at all at Eridge. Every day I was told the trains would return tomorrow. They didn't. Rumour had it that the diesels were pinched to service 'more important' lines suffering from the snow.
That well known commie Boris Johnson was responsible for renationalising large chunks of the London network (Liverpool Street-Chingford line etc etc). It has been a success. Filthy trains and stations have been replaced by clean ones, the stations are well lit and better staffed. One of the best things Red Boris ever did.
Comments
Hopefully like Le Pen (though 'd prefer her to be third or fourth)
I laid so much Bush last year.
Bit irksome. I'd prefer Melenchon not to get through into the second round.
F1: my analysis of yesterday's race, which has several notes perhaps useful for the rest of the season, is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/china-post-race-analysis-2017.html
[Not that up on French politics but the odds have looked rather peculiar].
I think I should do about the same once David Miliband doesn't become the next Labour leader. Probably the same mugs backing him tbh.
A sentance I can never repeat often enough with enough incredulity.
Notwithstanding the polling, I think he'd be crushed in Round 2, unless he faced Le Pen.
Poutou is the other problem for Melenchon. He's on Jean Jacques Bourdin (the French Paxman) this morning and is coming across very unpresidential and unstatesmanlike, but in a good way - he is, unsurprisingly, the only candidate who genuinely seems like a man of the people (doesn't speak in platitudes etc). I think he could get enough votes in the 1st round to deny Melenchon a top 2 position as well.
The fact is after the disaster that was Hollande, the French centre-right only had to find a candidate with a functioning brain cell to get to the last two and trounce a Le Pen in the run off - yet they choose Francois Fillon.
Even when his foibles were revealed (ooer !), instead of dumping him or persuading him to fall on his sword to be replaced by Juppe who has all the charisma of a cold rice pudding but nonetheless would still have got to the run off and beaten Le Pen, the French conservatives dithered, gave Fillon another chance and he's floundered again.
Yes, he might scrape past Macron into the last two but back him if you're that confident. All I see is a lot of wishful thinking that the Elysee might be filled by someone who will be "nice" to us during the A50 negotiations.
Imagine if we had to deal with a President Melanchon - Jeremy Corbyn would be over there every week. Reading the tweet posted by HYUFD, it's the sort of thing Corbyn supporters are posing over here - the French centre-right are as much sore losers as the British Left.
In my day job of digital product management, we almost totally regard what people say they want and say they do in favour of what we measure they actually do. What people say they'll do is a very poor signal.
Is it time for polls to do something similar?
From what little I know of French demographics and electoral statistics, I thought FN did very well among pensioners as well. Isn't Fillon's problem he isn't the only game in town with the older voters ?
Let me ask you directly, as a Conservative supporter, who do YOU want to win the French election ? Fillon or Le Pen ?
I don't really care who wins - I don't think it affects negotiations as much as Remainers seem to want to paint it. All that said, Macron seems like hype squared and incredibly flashy and panny. I'm all green, but layed Macron out to just £ 0.84.
But in political terms what they "actually do" is vote a particular way, or indeed not vote.
Can you summarise in a short post how you would apply what you propose to polling?
In 2017 Macron might be seen as an acceptable, not to say particularly French version of the deep radicalism that has swept the globe since.
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/04/07/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-tete-0211955709354.jpg
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
6. It seems to be a misconception that Melenchon's momentum will come to a halt because he has already squeezed Hamon's support about as much as he can. Certainly over half of his improvement has been at Hamons expense, but not all. If you compare just about any poll from a Company from 2-3 weeks ago with their most current poll you will see that not all his increase has come at the expense of Hamon. The rest has probably come from undecided supporters not previously aligned with any candidate and there are a lot of them. (See point 2)
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
But setting that aside for a moment, surely it is not in the UK's interest to have one of its very close neighbours and allies being governed by someone leading a party with fascist tendencies and antecedents and whose leader was reported this weekend as making the sorts of comments about Jews which would have us (some of us, anyway) in conniptions if made by the Leader of the Opposition here?
Britain stands up to fascism - or used to anyway. Why would we welcome it coming back to the European continent?
But measuring what people do is what gets done by the sorts of people who don't understand that the mark of true professionals is their judgment and that judgment cannot be measured through box-ticking exercises.
The rise of box-ticking is one reason why we have so much mediocrity around us.
But if you look at the level of modelling, and "behaviour prediction" if you like used by big companies to sell you stuff, It's staggering - and kind of creepy - how much they know about what you do, and what you're going to do in future.
Applying that level of analysis to politics would make current polling - "How are you going to vote on such and such a day?" seem pretty crude.
On the other hand, big companies can do what they do because they have in spending terms, a detailed record of your behaviour - but nobody has the same level of information about how you actually voted (at least I hope not).
Bombing Syria with the wrong co-ordinates..
The hilarious thing this morning was when we told that a train that normally doesn't stop at Woking would call at the station. Of course, it hurtled through the station as normal to much amusement of the waiting passengers.
As well as tactical opinion poll answering we should also be on the lookout for what one might call satirical voting - e.g. a Trump-hater voting for him in the hope that he gets in and his presidency is so disastrous that it destroys the credibility of the alt right.
So we should not measure the death rates of the patients of surgeons? And try to improve the performance of the worst?
Or look at infection rates in hospitals..? And let patients know what they are?
(I looked at the latter when my wife had the first of her two hip ops.. We chose to run away from our local hospitals. Unsurprisingly they not only had high infection rates but also poor standards of care..Now much improved). Her ops were excellent and trouble free)
We'll see.
As for Le Pen, her problem is holding together the huge contradictions of FN. Some FN supporters are economically liberal, others aren't. In one breath, Le Pen talks about protecting the 35-hour working week and safeguarding the pensions and other benefits enjoyed by French civil servants and in the next she's talking about a bonfire of regulation though she also wants protectionism.
The internal contradictions of "economic patriotism" are laid bare.
It's like pretending to be on the side of working people and then raising their taxes....
Box-ticking is not evidence. For example, ticking a box saying that a person has read a document does not show you whether they have understood it. How do you assess that? There are ways of doing this but they involve some element of assessment and thought and, yes, judgment. Too often the latter are undervalued or ignored and all the focus is on the action taken i.e. the reading of the document in my example.
Collecting information is fine. But it is not the end of the matter. You have to really read it; you have to really understand it; and then you have to act on it. Too often people think that the mere collection of information is enough without any intelligent attempt at understand what it is telling you. And what it is not telling you. And what weight to put on it. It is also foolish - and may be dangerous - to rely only on one source of information.
I think that is not correct.
One without the other leads to mistakes. I have seen the most serious mistakes come from someone who claims experience assuming they've seen something before.
The genuinely most experienced people know that they know nothing, keep a fresh mind and act according to evidence.
That is judgement.
Le Pen's price is more difficult to understand. Her best chance of winning is to face Fillon in round 2 and the odds of that happening are probably greater than Le Pen's current odds of being President. And even then she would be the outsider of the two. It's not even as if her support is growing at all, she was polling 26-27 before the first TV debate and has dropped 2 or 3 points since then.
She really suffered from just being just one of a number of anti-establishment candidates in the debates, and now the momentum is all against her. Now, right at the worst moment, she's retoxified her party with a row over the details of the holocaust.
I'm with Cyclefree on box-ticking in general. There is a great temptation to be guided by things that can easily be measured just because they can be measured. You can take steps to improve the figures - for example you can cut waiting list times at the expense of emergency care, or by making fake appointments. But improving the figures in itself doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a better job.
-21.8 Le Pen
+19.6 Macron
-33.6 Fillon
+7.9 Juppe
-1.3 Other
+5.5 Baroin
+20 Melenchon
-5 Hamon
Final 2: -0.08/+0.89 Le Pen/Melenchon anyway
A bit like the online world these days - lots of figures are collected but very few people have any clue what they really mean, or if they mean anything at all.
You are not the only one suffering a dose of cynicism this morning
Who'd have thought, the main PS candidate at 570.0 on Betfair 2 weeks out and not looking anything like value ?
I caught the train as normal but it terminated at Oxted and we were thrown off to catch an electric train (sort of counter intuitive). I asked why if the snow issue was with the electric trains. I was told that this train always terminated here. I pointed out that I caught it everyday and it did no such thing. I was told it did. After a bit of 'It did', 'It did not' exchange it was pointed out to me that there was no through train on a Saturday. I pointed out it was Tuesday to be told we are running a Saturday service today. I gave up at that point.
For the next week or so we never saw a train at all at Eridge. Every day I was told the trains would return tomorrow. They didn't. Rumour had it that the diesels were pinched to service 'more important' lines suffering from the snow.
Have the Nukes started flying yet?
Can anyone explain what franchising is for? No. Get rid.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londons-worst-rail-operators-for-lateness-are-revealed-a3201686.html
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/851365231343403009