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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
We had a PM who was a chemist. From your point of view, did that work out well or not?
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
We had a PM who was a chemist. From your point of view, did that work out well or not?
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
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.
I share your concern re: First MTR. They have made all sorts of ludicrous promises about increasing capacity and numbers of trains and I see no evidence these have been properly challenged by any experts.
I'm a regular SWT traveller but, unlike yourself I suspect, I am usually "against the flow" so going from Waterloo to places like Woking, Guildford, Kingston, Haslemere, Winchester, Portsmouth and Basingstoke for work. When it works, the lattice of trains is pretty good so if one is delayed, it's usually not too much of a problem.
My irritation is with the length of trains during the day. The 10 and 12 coach trains at morning and evening peak are fair enough (though I appreciate for you it may still be a stand, it isn't for me) but if I need to go during the day for a meeting at Winchester from Guildford, the journey is east enough but when I get to Woking, it's a piddly 5-car train which, when you take out the first class area, is basically a 4-car train and you'd be surprised how many people are travelling on business or on pleasure during the day.
The worst is if I have to go to Basingstoke and the train back up to Woking is a 3-car diesel - it's often jam-packed in the early afternoon with off-peak travellers who naturally are taking advantage of the cheaper day fares.
I think it's worth saying most of the recent delays have been down to suicides and Network Rail can't really be blamed for that. Some of the big stations have had suicide "gates" fitted but not all (Surbiton and Woking) and a fatality at one of those usually means hours of delays. It's a dreadful business for all concerned of course and SWT do their level best to resume their service as quickly as possible.
I think these flow charts are super. They'd be even more super if there was a DNV lane. Vote shares are interesting but absolute vote numbers are, to me, just as informative. You get a feel for impact of (differential) turnout.
I think these flow charts are super. They'd be even more super if there was a DNV lane. Vote shares are interesting but absolute vote numbers are, to me, just as informative. You get a feel for impact of (differential) turnout.
Would also be good to see first time voters and the impact of people dying.
Only a small percentage of voters seem to switch parties between elections and Ashcrofts figures seem to reflect that.
The fall in Lib Dem support between 2010 and 2015 is an exception showing how soft the Lib Dem vote was in 2010 - they soon melted away after the coalition was formed.
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
Various reasons. To go into politics you have to be selected. To be selected you need strong social connections, spare cash and a lot of spare time.
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.
Eh? Le Pen would be an absolute disaster for the UK. The EU, and the European economy, would be thown into utter turmoil, which would be extremely damaging for our economy. It would also downgrade Brexit to an issue of relatively no importance for the EU, as well as making it near-impossible for the EU27 to decide anything, pretty much guaranteeing a chaotic crash-out and business chaos.
Since there is a train related sub-thread today, I have a question for our spotter types: Observing other SW trains on the way in every day I note that 1/2 the carriages a have a bare underside between front and rear wheel bogeys. The other 1/2 are utterly pregnant with boxes of equipment of various sorts. What is this underbelly kit and why do some have it and others not?
-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
I'm guessing the unit is larger than one pound...?
It's the shape of the book thats of interest though (I think)
If M Melenchon can get into the top two, this will end up being my best ever result and will establish enough of a bankroll that I'll be happy carrying a red in future...
I'm a very low stakes gambler. My biggest liability on this market at any point was £5, but thanks to some nice tips here I've locked in a profit of £6 and have a cash out value of £64.50 with Melenchon at +£500. If only I could have started with £5k not £5
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
Various reasons. To go into politics you have to be selected. To be selected you need strong social connections, spare cash and a lot of spare time.
To go into politics as a Conservative you have to be selected..strong social connections..spare cash...spare time...etc.
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
Various reasons. To go into politics you have to be selected. To be selected you need strong social connections, spare cash and a lot of spare time.
To go into politics as a Conservative you have to be selected..strong social connections..spare cash...spare time...etc.
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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
Various reasons. To go into politics you have to be selected. To be selected you need strong social connections, spare cash and a lot of spare time.
To go into politics as a Conservative you have to be selected..strong social connections..spare cash...spare time...etc.
As a Lab politician you don't need any of that.
What do they need then?
Motivation, determination, ability...you know, normal stuff.
I think what Topping is trying to say is that to become a Tory MP you need first to be evil but to become a Labour MP you need first to be an angel. Or something like that.
Le Pen 26% Mélenchon 26% Macron 15% Fillon 11% Dupont-Aignan 10% Hamon 7%
Round 2? Mélenchon's tax policy alone (on incomes and large estates) could inspire the majority of the population. So we could get
Mélenchon 56% Le Pen 44%
If it's these two in R2, many of the Macron voters will vote for Le Pen. Why? Nothing to do with the Arabs. But because they hate Mélenchon's tax policies. I don't care how "centrist" and "pro-EU" the well-off middle classes are: they know what side their bread is buttered and they won't vote for cutting their own privileged living standards by paying increased tax. The good news is that there aren't so many of them.
How much further will the move towards Mélenchon go? I'm sceptical, for a number of reasons:
1. Look at the chart. His rise is Hamon's fall. But Hamon's level of support is now so derisory that there's not that much left for Mélenchon to gobble up, assuming that Hamon gets at least some of the traditional Socialist vote.
2. If the Socialist support falls further, it may split multiple ways, with some of it going to Macron, as well as a bit trickling off to minor far-left candidates.
3. Although in policy terms you might expect some Le Pen support to switch to Mélenchon, giving that they are both anti-EU protectionists, in practice the Le Pen certainty to vote is high and there's no evidence of switching. I think that is because the divide is tribal, not policy-based.
4. Debate-driven polling bounces tend to dissipate - the Cleggasm was a good example, another was the Romney bounce in 2012.
5. If Mélenchon pulls well clear of Fillon, and it begns to look as though it might be a Len Pen - Mélenchon final, I'd expect some Fillon support to move to Macron to avert what centre-right voters will see as the disaster of two extremists being in the final two.
Still, Macron's vote is certainly a bit soft, so there is room for one of Mélenchon or Fillon to narrow the gap.
I share your concern re: First MTR. They have made all sorts of ludicrous promises about increasing capacity and numbers of trains and I see no evidence these have been properly challenged by any experts.
I'm a regular SWT traveller but, unlike yourself I suspect, I am usually "against the flow" so going from Waterloo to places like Woking, Guildford, Kingston, Haslemere, Winchester, Portsmouth and Basingstoke for work. When it works, the lattice of trains is pretty good so if one is delayed, it's usually not too much of a problem.
My irritation is with the length of trains during the day. The 10 and 12 coach trains at morning and evening peak are fair enough (though I appreciate for you it may still be a stand, it isn't for me) but if I need to go during the day for a meeting at Winchester from Guildford, the journey is east enough but when I get to Woking, it's a piddly 5-car train which, when you take out the first class area, is basically a 4-car train and you'd be surprised how many people are travelling on business or on pleasure during the day.
The worst is if I have to go to Basingstoke and the train back up to Woking is a 3-car diesel - it's often jam-packed in the early afternoon with off-peak travellers who naturally are taking advantage of the cheaper day fares.
I think it's worth saying most of the recent delays have been down to suicides and Network Rail can't really be blamed for that. Some of the big stations have had suicide "gates" fitted but not all (Surbiton and Woking) and a fatality at one of those usually means hours of delays. It's a dreadful business for all concerned of course and SWT do their level best to resume their service as quickly as possible.
That's very interesting, thanks Stodge. My biggest complaint with SWT is short formations at weekends. Three times in two months last year, the 18:00 to Portsmouth on a Saturday was formed of four coaches. I know they have to do maintenance at the weekends, but that was ridiculous.
Apparently, the 707s that are currently being commissioned for the Reading and Windsor lines don't have good enough acceleration to fit into the - as you say - ambitious new timetable of four trains an hour to both destinations.
What I think is very disturbing about the First MTR deal is that they aren't replacing the 158/159s used on the West of England Line. These trains only do 90 mph and don't have great acceleration. Replacing them with new diesels - preferably loco hauled - would have improved performance on the line between Woking and Waterloo. But why would First want to go to the trouble of spending some money on upgrading services that would just compete with their own services out of Paddington?
I think what Topping is trying to say is that to become a Tory MP you need first to be evil but to become a Labour MP you need first to be an angel. Or something like that.
That goes without saying.
Actually what I was getting at is that IN GENERAL AND CERTAINLY NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED TRISTRAM Labour would-be politicians come from a demographic which might view an MP's salary as a very good one. Whereas IN GENERAL AND NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED ERIC, Tory would-be politicians might think an MP's salary derisory.
I think these flow charts are super. They'd be even more super if there was a DNV lane. Vote shares are interesting but absolute vote numbers are, to me, just as informative. You get a feel for impact of (differential) turnout.
Would also be good to see first time voters and the impact of people dying.
Yes - did/could not votes are also a key part of the puzzle.
How do pb'ers see turnout in 2020? I think we might push 70%, even though the result may be a foregone conclusion (GE was 66.4, EU Ref 72.2).
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 perfonts. 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.
Not cast iron certainty, just confidence in the scientific method that has a pretty good track record.
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
Are you a scientist yourself and, if you don't mind saying, in which area?
Biophysics.
Thank you.
Why do you t?
Various reasons. to be selectepare time.
To go into politics as a Conservative you have to be selected..strong social connections..spare cash...spare time...etc.
As a Lab politician you don't need any of that.
What do they need then?
Motivation, determination, ability...you know, normal stuff.
Why, then, is there no discernible difference in the abilities of MPs from different parties then? You've the same mix of dullards and partisan automatons, with a sprinkling of the inspired and inspiring, whether you go Tory or Labour (with the smaller parties the numbers mean you might get lucky and have a higher proportion be above average for MPs, or unlucky and wind up with worse than average).
It may be that to be a Lab MP you also need spare time to put into it - why wouldn't you? - and different types of connections. Connection is certainly needed no matter who you stand for, since that's the whole point - you are standing for in essence a private club, therefore you need to be in with that club. That's not even a criticism of either party.
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.
Eh? Le Pen would be an absolute disaster for the UK. The EU, and the European economy, would be thown into utter turmoil, which would be extremely damaging for our economy. It would also downgrade Brexit to an issue of relatively no importance for the EU, as well as making it near-impossible for the EU27 to decide anything, pretty much guaranteeing a chaotic crash-out and business chaos.
Either her proposals would bite the dust, or she would be successful and British capital would be at the table negotiating the new Europe with France, Germany and probably in one way or another Russia.
On the great box ticking debate, while I accept the point there is a lot of needless bureaucracy and pointless measuring out there, of things that don't matter, as someone whose job involves getting people to follow correct procedures for their own benefit, it is my experience that you get plenty of lazy people who pride themselves on their judgement, who regard any procedure as hindrance and monitoring as box-ticking, and end up causing problems in their arrogant disdain for accountability, so certain their judgement is correct that the little details, including critical administrative and even legal issues, are just 'box ticking'.
I think what Topping is trying to say is that to become a Tory MP you need first to be evil but to become a Labour MP you need first to be an angel. Or something like that.
That goes without saying.
Actually what I was getting at is that IN GENERAL AND CERTAINLY NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED TRISTRAM Labour would-be politicians come from a demographic which might view an MP's salary as a very good one. Whereas IN GENERAL AND NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED ERIC, Tory would-be politicians might think an MP's salary derisory.
I can see it being more likely with Labour, definitely, though I'd be interested how much more to whether it could be called 'in general' they are like that.
I think these flow charts are super. They'd be even more super if there was a DNV lane. Vote shares are interesting but absolute vote numbers are, to me, just as informative. You get a feel for impact of (differential) turnout.
Would also be good to see first time voters and the impact of people dying.
Yes - did/could not votes are also a key part of the puzzle.
How do pb'ers see turnout in 2020? I think we might push 70%, even though the result may be a foregone conclusion (GE was 66.4, EU Ref 72.2).
Up I think. Way larger differences between Nuttall/May/Farron/Corbyn over Farage/Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.
Up I think. Way larger differences between Nuttall/May/Farron/Corbyn over Farage/Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.
But turnout tends to fall if the result looks like a done deal.
Yes, 1983 was about 3% lower than 1979 & 1987 (which itself wasn't exactly close in the end). But has the EU Ref re-politicised people who had tuned out?
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Up I think. Way larger differences between Nuttall/May/Farron/Corbyn over Farage/Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.
But turnout tends to fall if the result looks like a done deal.
Yes, 1983 was about 3% lower than 1979 & 1987 (which itself wasn't exactly close in the end). But has the EU Ref re-politicised people who had tuned out?
Some, but I'd be surprised if it had that much effect. I know a couple of lifelong non-voter, age 60+, who voted in the referendum, but have no intention of voting ever again.
I hope turnout does go up though - It'd be more evidence for the 'turnout is dwindling' crowd that, though it remains low on historical terms and that is an issue, it did go up three elections in a row, so if there is still a downward trend, the slide has seemingly arrested.
Up I think. Way larger differences between Nuttall/May/Farron/Corbyn over Farage/Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.
But turnout tends to fall if the result looks like a done deal.
Yes, 1983 was about 3% lower than 1979 & 1987 (which itself wasn't exactly close in the end). But has the EU Ref re-politicised people who had tuned out?
Some, but I'd be surprised if it had that much effect. I know a couple of lifelong non-voter, age 60+, who voted in the referendum, but have no intention of voting ever again.
I hope turnout does go up though - It'd be more evidence for the 'turnout is dwindling' crowd that, though it remains low on historical terms and that is an issue, it did go up three elections in a row, so if there is still a downward trend, the slide has seemingly arrested.
IVR may have a technical effect on the figures too - a cleaner register should mean higher turnout by default.
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Does that include Poutou, Dupont-Aignan and other assorted odds and sods ?
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Does that include Poutou, Dupont-Aignan and other assorted odds and sods ?
How useful was Ashcroft's polling for the 2015 GE? Not very is my recollection despite all the hoopla.
There were years of "OMG this is sensational no one has ever polled the 3 way marginals like this before" talk; but more fart than follow-through. He also got away with murder in that he isn't a pollster, he is a customer of pollsters whose product he then rebadges. That might be ok except that he uses different pollsters in what is ostensibly a series of like for like polls so that e.g. some are really yougov, others ICM, as if there were no such thing as a house effect.
How useful was Ashcroft's polling for the 2015 GE? Not very is my recollection despite all the hoopla.
There were years of "OMG this is sensational no one has ever polled the 3 way marginals like this before" talk; but more fart than follow-through. He also got away with murder in that he isn't a pollster, he is a customer of pollsters whose product he then rebadges. That might be ok except that he uses different pollsters in what is ostensibly a series of like for like polls so that e.g. some are really yougov, others ICM, as if there were no such thing as a house effect.
I think the Good Lord gets a bit of slack because he's clearly just a polling nerd like all of us.
How useful was Ashcroft's polling for the 2015 GE? Not very is my recollection despite all the hoopla.
There were years of "OMG this is sensational no one has ever polled the 3 way marginals like this before" talk; but more fart than follow-through. He also got away with murder in that he isn't a pollster, he is a customer of pollsters whose product he then rebadges. That might be ok except that he uses different pollsters in what is ostensibly a series of like for like polls so that e.g. some are really yougov, others ICM, as if there were no such thing as a house effect.
I think the Good Lord gets a bit of slack because he's clearly just a polling nerd like all of us.
Noble lord. The Good Lord is someone quite different, and He doesn't need to conduct opinion polls, what with being omniscient and all that.
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Isn't there a point at which it become illegal to publish polls?
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Isn't there a point at which it become illegal to publish polls?
The ban now applies only in the last 24 hours. It used to be the last week.
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Isn't there a point at which it become illegal to publish polls?
The ban now applies only in the last 24 hours. It used to be the last week.
If you're going to ban them at all, a week would seem to make more sense than the last 24 hours - if they are to have an effect, they'll already have had them by then.
How useful was Ashcroft's polling for the 2015 GE? Not very is my recollection despite all the hoopla.
There were years of "OMG this is sensational no one has ever polled the 3 way marginals like this before" talk; but more fart than follow-through. He also got away with murder in that he isn't a pollster, he is a customer of pollsters whose product he then rebadges. That might be ok except that he uses different pollsters in what is ostensibly a series of like for like polls so that e.g. some are really yougov, others ICM, as if there were no such thing as a house effect.
I think the Good Lord gets a bit of slack because he's clearly just a polling nerd like all of us.
Noble lord. The Good Lord is someone quite different, and He doesn't need to conduct opinion polls, what with being omniscient and all that.
Though I understand He is struggling with differential turnout.
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Isn't there a point at which it become illegal to publish polls?
The ban now applies only in the last 24 hours. It used to be the last week.
If you're going to ban them at all, a week would seem to make more sense than the last 24 hours - if they are to have an effect, they'll already have had them by then.
It's not just polls that are banned on the Saturday before the Sunday vote. There is "election silence" too. As I understand it, no campaigning is allowed and the media aren't allowed to mention that so-and-so is standing in the election.
This is what they had in mind when they said that the TV debate scheduled for Thursday 20 April would only have allowed a single day for non-participating candidates to respond, namely the Friday.
To confirm: yes, TV and radio stations must give equal time to all 11 candidates from today on.
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
Isn't there a point at which it become illegal to publish polls?
The ban now applies only in the last 24 hours. It used to be the last week.
If you're going to ban them at all, a week would seem to make more sense than the last 24 hours - if they are to have an effect, they'll already have had them by then.
Probably been asked before, but is there the same amount of postal voting in French elections, and is other early voting allowed, as in the US?
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
Betting Post F1: contemplating Red Bull for the Constructors'. 21 at Ladbrokes.
Their car is a clear third and it needs development. However, they have one big advantage which is two top class drivers. Bottas and Raikkonen are far off the pace of their team mates. Ricciardo and Verstappen are very close, and very good.
Hmm. Just checked and Betfair has 46. Put a few pounds on that (only £7 left).
F1: that appears to have vanished now, but on the Ladbrokes exchange (which I don't use much) there's a little at 41.
If I were setting the odds, I'd probably have something between 12 and 15. Red Bull do have ground to make up, but if they get close to level then they stand a good chance at the Constructors'.
Of course, if they don't, they've no hope.
Edited extra bit: I tend not to look at the graphs, but some clever sod got on Ferrari at 50 for the Constructors'
Edited extra bit 2: for clarification, this absolutely was not me. Alas.
Presumably the French "election silence" applies to campaign websites and Facebook and Twitter efforts too. I am not sure whether the websites have to be taken down or not.
This puts the candidate who enjoys the most dark side support, namely Le Pen, at an advantage. But there's only a certain amount that even a well-run troll army can do in a day or two.
If on the day of the French vote, or even the day before, a newspaper were to send out hundreds of thousands of emails encouraging people to vote a certain way, they wouldn't just be breaking data protection rules, as the Daily Telegraph got fined £30K for in Britain in 2015; they'd be breaking electoral law.
Presumably the French "election silence" applies to campaign websites and Facebook and Twitter efforts too. I am not sure whether the websites have to be taken down or not.
I have a vague recollection that the internet is outside the scope of the law.
Not sure how useful this information is, but in the 59 seasons since they brought in the Constructors' Championship, there have been 10 occasions where the Drivers' Champion didn't drive for the winning constructor:
1958 Mike Hawthorn 1973 Jackie Stewart 1976 James Hunt 1981 Nelson Piquet 1982 Keke Rosberg 1983 Nelson Piquet 1986 Alain Prost 1994 Michael Schumacher 1999 Mika Häkkinen 2008 Lewis Hamilton
EDIT: 2007 would also have been one had McLaren not been disgracefully kicked out of the Constructors' Championship.
I think the chances this year are relatively good, simply because Hamilton and Vettel are de facto number 1 drivers whereas Verstappen and Ricciardo are very closely matched. Development gap must be bridged, however (reliability too).
Hmm. Am wondering if I might have been better off waiting until after Bahrain (odds may well lengthen) but there we are.
I may regret this but have just laid off my Melenchon at 13.5; I'd backed him at an average of 57.
I'm not sure how much further he has to rise in the polls, but I don't think he gets the votes to make the 2nd round.
Where are you at overall ?
I'm all green on the final two. I'm red £325 on Le Pen as President, very green on all the others. Could cash out low green but going to sweat it out.
Macron has today compared Melenchon to Putin and said Fillon is incapable of telling the truth. Now while that may be true he is not exactly going out of his way to win over their voters in a runoff with Le Pen even if he is strong favourite
What I think is very disturbing about the First MTR deal is that they aren't replacing the 158/159s used on the West of England Line. These trains only do 90 mph and don't have great acceleration. Replacing them with new diesels - preferably loco hauled - would have improved performance on the line between Woking and Waterloo.
Very possible some of the Transpennine 185s will end up there. They're being released by TPE and aren't spoken for yet; they do 100mph and have better real-world acceleration than a 159.
What I think is very disturbing about the First MTR deal is that they aren't replacing the 158/159s used on the West of England Line. These trains only do 90 mph and don't have great acceleration. Replacing them with new diesels - preferably loco hauled - would have improved performance on the line between Woking and Waterloo.
Very possible some of the Transpennine 185s will end up there. They're being released by TPE and aren't spoken for yet; they do 100mph and have better real-world acceleration than a 159.
Yes, I've heard that too. The 185s are Siemens trains too which would probably be beneficial in terms of maintenance with the Siemens stock already on SWT.
What I think is very disturbing about the First MTR deal is that they aren't replacing the 158/159s used on the West of England Line. These trains only do 90 mph and don't have great acceleration. Replacing them with new diesels - preferably loco hauled - would have improved performance on the line between Woking and Waterloo.
Very possible some of the Transpennine 185s will end up there. They're being released by TPE and aren't spoken for yet; they do 100mph and have better real-world acceleration than a 159.
Yes, I've heard that too. The 185s are Siemens trains too which would probably be beneficial in terms of maintenance with the Siemens stock already on SWT.
I am on the SWT network and thought stagecoach was ok, but no more than that.
I expect FirstGroup to be better for the taxpayer but worse for the passenger.
I'm not holding my breath over any of these promised improvements.
Macron compares Melenchon to Putin mobile.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/851399386206785536
No he didn't.
He said if the peace of Melenchon is the peace of Putin that is very little peace for him
No you've misunderstood him. He said that the 'peace' of Melenchon just means unilateral disarmament in the face of France's enemies and it's not for him.
Macron compares Melenchon to Putin mobile.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/851399386206785536
No he didn't.
He said if the peace of Melenchon is the peace of Putin that is very little peace for him
No you've misunderstood him. He said that the 'peace' of Melenchon just means unilateral disarmament in the face of France's enemies and it's not for him.
He specifically compared the peace of Melenchon to the peace of Putin as Melenchon has backed Putin's opposition to the US strike on the Assad airbase which Macron supported
Macron compares Melenchon to Putin mobile.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/851399386206785536
No he didn't.
He said if the peace of Melenchon is the peace of Putin that is very little peace for him
No you've misunderstood him. He said that the 'peace' of Melenchon just means unilateral disarmament in the face of France's enemies and it's not for him.
He specifically compared the peace of Melenchon to the peace of Putin as Melenchon has backed Putin's opposition to the US strike on the Assad airbase which Macron supported
I like this stance from a betting point of view, he can probably hold some slightly right of centre supporters in the first round with it when you factor in Fillon's weakness.
Comments
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/04/more-from-my-brexit-research/#more-15143
Anyway, not sure it's technically possible to have fewer scientists in the Commons.
I don't agree with her politics, but there is little doubt her scientific training made her more effective in what she wanted to achieve.
Why do you think that so few scientists do go into politics?
I'm a regular SWT traveller but, unlike yourself I suspect, I am usually "against the flow" so going from Waterloo to places like Woking, Guildford, Kingston, Haslemere, Winchester, Portsmouth and Basingstoke for work. When it works, the lattice of trains is pretty good so if one is delayed, it's usually not too much of a problem.
My irritation is with the length of trains during the day. The 10 and 12 coach trains at morning and evening peak are fair enough (though I appreciate for you it may still be a stand, it isn't for me) but if I need to go during the day for a meeting at Winchester from Guildford, the journey is east enough but when I get to Woking, it's a piddly 5-car train which, when you take out the first class area, is basically a 4-car train and you'd be surprised how many people are travelling on business or on pleasure during the day.
The worst is if I have to go to Basingstoke and the train back up to Woking is a 3-car diesel - it's often jam-packed in the early afternoon with off-peak travellers who naturally are taking advantage of the cheaper day fares.
I think it's worth saying most of the recent delays have been down to suicides and Network Rail can't really be blamed for that. Some of the big stations have had suicide "gates" fitted but not all (Surbiton and Woking) and a fatality at one of those usually means hours of delays. It's a dreadful business for all concerned of course and SWT do their level best to resume their service as quickly as possible.
The fall in Lib Dem support between 2010 and 2015 is an exception showing how soft the Lib Dem vote was in 2010 - they soon melted away after the coalition was formed.
Observing other SW trains on the way in every day I note that 1/2 the carriages a have a bare underside between front and rear wheel bogeys. The other 1/2 are utterly pregnant with boxes of equipment of various sorts. What is this underbelly kit and why do some have it and others not?
I'm a very low stakes gambler. My biggest liability on this market at any point was £5, but thanks to some nice tips here I've locked in a profit of £6 and have a cash out value of £64.50 with Melenchon at +£500. If only I could have started with £5k not £5
As a Lab politician you don't need any of that.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/851362740442718208
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/851371448648249344
Le Pen 26%
Mélenchon 26%
Macron 15%
Fillon 11%
Dupont-Aignan 10%
Hamon 7%
Round 2? Mélenchon's tax policy alone (on incomes and large estates) could inspire the majority of the population. So we could get
Mélenchon 56%
Le Pen 44%
If it's these two in R2, many of the Macron voters will vote for Le Pen. Why? Nothing to do with the Arabs. But because they hate Mélenchon's tax policies. I don't care how "centrist" and "pro-EU" the well-off middle classes are: they know what side their bread is buttered and they won't vote for cutting their own privileged living standards by paying increased tax. The good news is that there aren't so many of them.
I'm green on everyone except Macron and Fillon.
1. Look at the chart. His rise is Hamon's fall. But Hamon's level of support is now so derisory that there's not that much left for Mélenchon to gobble up, assuming that Hamon gets at least some of the traditional Socialist vote.
2. If the Socialist support falls further, it may split multiple ways, with some of it going to Macron, as well as a bit trickling off to minor far-left candidates.
3. Although in policy terms you might expect some Le Pen support to switch to Mélenchon, giving that they are both anti-EU protectionists, in practice the Le Pen certainty to vote is high and there's no evidence of switching. I think that is because the divide is tribal, not policy-based.
4. Debate-driven polling bounces tend to dissipate - the Cleggasm was a good example, another was the Romney bounce in 2012.
5. If Mélenchon pulls well clear of Fillon, and it begns to look as though it might be a Len Pen - Mélenchon final, I'd expect some Fillon support to move to Macron to avert what centre-right voters will see as the disaster of two extremists being in the final two.
Still, Macron's vote is certainly a bit soft, so there is room for one of Mélenchon or Fillon to narrow the gap.
Apparently, the 707s that are currently being commissioned for the Reading and Windsor lines don't have good enough acceleration to fit into the - as you say - ambitious new timetable of four trains an hour to both destinations.
What I think is very disturbing about the First MTR deal is that they aren't replacing the 158/159s used on the West of England Line. These trains only do 90 mph and don't have great acceleration. Replacing them with new diesels - preferably loco hauled
Actually what I was getting at is that IN GENERAL AND CERTAINLY NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED TRISTRAM Labour would-be politicians come from a demographic which might view an MP's salary as a very good one. Whereas IN GENERAL AND NOT IF THEY'RE CALLED ERIC, Tory would-be politicians might think an MP's salary derisory.
How do pb'ers see turnout in 2020? I think we might push 70%, even though the result may be a foregone conclusion (GE was 66.4, EU Ref 72.2).
It may be that to be a Lab MP you also need spare time to put into it - why wouldn't you? - and different types of connections. Connection is certainly needed no matter who you stand for, since that's the whole point - you are standing for in essence a private club, therefore you need to be in with that club. That's not even a criticism of either party.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/851374243459858432
That is a hell of a one day jump in a rolling poll. Movement is normally limited to one point shifts. Still behind Fillon who drops one point to 19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Has anyone done the Inverness, Thurso Wick trip? Apparently it's one of the most scenic in the UK
The rules regarding air time for each candidate become stricter today, 10 April. Today is when the campaign for the presidency officially starts. TV and radio channels are required to give all candidates equal time.
I hope turnout does go up though - It'd be more evidence for the 'turnout is dwindling' crowd that, though it remains low on historical terms and that is an issue, it did go up three elections in a row, so if there is still a downward trend, the slide has seemingly arrested.
This is what they had in mind when they said that the TV debate scheduled for Thursday 20 April would only have allowed a single day for non-participating candidates to respond, namely the Friday.
To confirm: yes, TV and radio stations must give equal time to all 11 candidates from today on.
I'm not sure how much further he has to rise in the polls, but I don't think he gets the votes to make the 2nd round.
Betting PostF1: contemplating Red Bull for the Constructors'. 21 at Ladbrokes.
Their car is a clear third and it needs development. However, they have one big advantage which is two top class drivers. Bottas and Raikkonen are far off the pace of their team mates. Ricciardo and Verstappen are very close, and very good.
Hmm. Just checked and Betfair has 46. Put a few pounds on that (only £7 left).
Worth a crack, I think.
+495 Macron
+18 Fillon
+15 Melenchon
-560 Le Pen
+790 Hamon
+450 Baroin
+ 2k Juppe/Poutou/Sarko/Dupont-Aignan
+ 285 Field
And I have a cash out position of about +£130 and about £90 to play with in my account.
I may go back into Melenchon. I'm nervous about laying Fillon too heavily (even though I want to and will probably regret not doing so)
If I were setting the odds, I'd probably have something between 12 and 15. Red Bull do have ground to make up, but if they get close to level then they stand a good chance at the Constructors'.
Of course, if they don't, they've no hope.
Edited extra bit: I tend not to look at the graphs, but some clever sod got on Ferrari at 50 for the Constructors'
Edited extra bit 2: for clarification, this absolutely was not me. Alas.
This puts the candidate who enjoys the most dark side support, namely Le Pen, at an advantage. But there's only a certain amount that even a well-run troll army can do in a day or two.
If on the day of the French vote, or even the day before, a newspaper were to send out hundreds of thousands of emails encouraging people to vote a certain way, they wouldn't just be breaking data protection rules, as the Daily Telegraph got fined £30K for in Britain in 2015; they'd be breaking electoral law.
Not sure how useful this information is, but in the 59 seasons since they brought in the Constructors' Championship, there have been 10 occasions where the Drivers' Champion didn't drive for the winning constructor:
1958 Mike Hawthorn
1973 Jackie Stewart
1976 James Hunt
1981 Nelson Piquet
1982 Keke Rosberg
1983 Nelson Piquet
1986 Alain Prost
1994 Michael Schumacher
1999 Mika Häkkinen
2008 Lewis Hamilton
EDIT: 2007 would also have been one had McLaren not been disgracefully kicked out of the Constructors' Championship.
I think the chances this year are relatively good, simply because Hamilton and Vettel are de facto number 1 drivers whereas Verstappen and Ricciardo are very closely matched. Development gap must be bridged, however (reliability too).
Hmm. Am wondering if I might have been better off waiting until after Bahrain (odds may well lengthen) but there we are.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/851399386206785536
I'm red £325 on Le Pen as President, very green on all the others. Could cash out low green but going to sweat it out.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/851402839146586112
So much depends on the status of the Labour leadership and Brexit; 2020 polling seems somewhat academic although it's certainly interesting.
I expect FirstGroup to be better for the taxpayer but worse for the passenger.
I'm not holding my breath over any of these promised improvements.