My take on the ONS study: thoroughly depressing reading
After the last survey suggested cases, while rising, had started to level off, the latest results suggest it is onwards and upwards for Covid-19!
The most striking figure is that it estimates 1% of people in England had Covid-19 over the period in question. People discuss the rate at which cases are doubling might slow, but at current levels we really can't afford any more doublings at all.
Clearly the current restrictions aren't getting R below 1 when combined with schools and universities being open, so it seems a continuation of the trend is inevitable. I'm not sure there is the political will (or willingness among the wider population) for another lockdown, but in the absence of that the current halfway house of Tier 2/3 restrictions look likely to continue indefinitely.
And yet the battle between any kind of growth function and "don't want restrictions" is only going to end one way; the question is simply what level of infections is intolerable?
And if you accept the need for extra restrictions in (say) a month's time, is it really worth trying to stagger on until then?
It depends what your strategy is. The government's strategy is to have the minimum level of restrictions consistent with not overwhelming the NHS and shovelling money to incompetents to mismanage your test, trace and isolate system.
Therefore you delay introducing restrictions until the last possible moment, and you bias towards hoping for the best until proved otherwise.
The implementation seems entirely consistent with the strategy. You'd be better off arguing for a different strategy, and then what actions follow from that strategy.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
It's deeper than that - it's about world view and how we prioritise belief, evidence, emotion etc.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Thick as bricks, the pair of them. And to think Laura Pidcock WAS the next LOTO.
They were the future once!
They might yet be the future yet.
Maybe the future Lord Corbyn knows of a safe Labour seat, not in the precarious North of England that Laura could slip into for her future leadership bid.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
Smarkets, nominally an "exchange" did that with me, sodded me about for weeks getting all kinds of evidence of who I was and where I got the money from, then said I was not allowed to have an account and never would be - why would an exchange do that to someone providing liquidity? They should be all for it
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
Smarkets, nominally an "exchange" did that with me, sodded me about for weeks getting all kinds of evidence of who I was and where I got the money from, then said I was not allowed to have an account and never would be - why would an exchange do that to someone providing liquidity? They should be all for it
Sorry, Sam, but if I stated him my view of Smarkets their lawyers would likely be on to Mike in a shot. So, no comment.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
Usual dribbling rubbish from you, a nastier creepier little Englander could not be found. Same regurgitated lies and puerile crap every time.
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
Just as well you have a garden, then isn't it, for such a decision.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
I don't recognise that description of Scottish nationalism from the time I lived in Scotland. I've always found the SNP and Greens to be progressive forces, erring on the side of woke rather than intolerant. I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things. All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
I swear that me placing a 3 pound bet (I'm limited to 10 pound max winnings) on a Constituency on BetFair Sports book is enough to move the price.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
Usually dribbling rubbish from you, a nastier creepier little Englander could not be found. Same regurgitated lies and puerile crap every time.
Ah, the foul mouthed inarticulate nationalist is too dumb not to rise and prove my point. I am no "Little Englander" you numpty, quite the opposite. You on the other hand are very much the small minded "Little Scotlander" to which I referred. No one except those that conform to your idea of the "Scottish" is able to comment on anything to do with Scotland eh? Dear me, and those in the SNP claim to be "progressive"?! You are a dinosaur, a creature of the past, but I guess that is how you like it. I am glad most Scots are decent folk; if they were all like you I would be begging you all to go independent.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
I swear that me placing a 3 pound bet (I'm limited to 10 pound max winnings) on a Constituency on BetFair Sports book is enough to move the price.
More fool you for placing the bet if you dislike the bookie so - You are giving the game away to them at a cost of their choice, that you find unacceptable
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
Smarkets, nominally an "exchange" did that with me, sodded me about for weeks getting all kinds of evidence of who I was and where I got the money from, then said I was not allowed to have an account and never would be - why would an exchange do that to someone providing liquidity? They should be all for it
Interesting. Does this mean that the betting odds posted on here are biased because the savviest bettors are systematically barred?
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Man whose knee jerk style is to bellow about Nazis and anti English racism at any indy supporters (even when they're not discussing Scotland or including him in a convo) starts bleating about narrow minds & having a right to express an opinion. Peak PB Scotch expert.
You can express any opinion you like but have precisely zero right to expect me to take any of your attention seeking capering on this subject seriously.
Thick as bricks, the pair of them. And to think Laura Pidcock WAS the next LOTO.
They were the future once!
They might yet be the future yet.
Maybe the future Lord Corbyn knows of a safe Labour seat, not in the precarious North of England that Laura could slip into for her future leadership bid.
Would be a real challenge to make Islington North go Tory, but given her efforts in North West Durham I think she might be up to the task!
If, and its a (as Trump would say) a very bigly IF, Trump wins there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters, as if Trump loses the NV by half those numbers he isn't going to win the EV so if he does win some pollsters will have got it very very wrong.
I think red faces is a big understatement.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
Polls have got considerably more accurate over the years since Truman/Dewey and their recent 'failures' are more in the mind than in fact, as regulars here know very well. Nevertheless for Donald to retain the Presidency from 7 or more points down would indicate a polling error of unprecedented proportions. (I think the first Obama win was their worst effort in recent times and that was only out by about 3%.)
It would therefore indeed be a complete disater from the industry.
That is true.
Which is why it was interesting to see Nate Silver say Trump could only win now via fraud. His business is absolutely screwed if he gets this one wrong. For most of the other polling companies, political polling is not profitable and they do it more for the publicity side.
Are you sure that "most" of the pollsters (or pseudo-pollsters) in this election are standard firms who make their money via business polling? Seems to me that is NOT the case this year.
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
It's deeper than that - it's about world view and how we prioritise belief, evidence, emotion etc.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Our education and culture has done a huge disservice to us by promoting the idea that intellect over emotion is superior.
Decision-making without emotions is next to impossible, as we see from people with specific brain injuries which effectively sever the emotional brain from the rational brain. Motivation, emotion and motion all have the same etymological root for good reason - there is no motivation to act without emotion. And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions.
This idea that political decisions could, or should, be stripped of emotion, and that those who make political decisions based on numbers are somehow superior, is so, so wrong.
In short, the emotions of the stupid **** who voted [insert your pet peeve here - Trump, Brexit, Corbyn] are no less valid a political decision-making approach than an intellectual's dispassionate analysis of the competing menus of policies provided by the major parties.
As an atheist, I strongly believe that religious people have a right to factor their religion into their decision-making, and observe that religion, as with other cultural and personality issues, strongly influence decision-making at a subconscious level.
However, when it comes to organization of a safe society, society does have rights to protect itself from those with views that would hurt other parts of society. But that is a whole other, much longer conversation that I am still struggling with.
I'm not familiar with this polling company but couple of things stand out.
Ohio and Michigan both look too wide Florida looks about right to me, the closer we get the more I think Trump will win there The other polls look good for Biden in general PA again is looking that it may well be the decisive state. Finally,,,,101% in MIchigan,,,,,now thats voter enthusiasm! (i'm assuming some rounding up has been done)
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
Smarkets, nominally an "exchange" did that with me, sodded me about for weeks getting all kinds of evidence of who I was and where I got the money from, then said I was not allowed to have an account and never would be - why would an exchange do that to someone providing liquidity? They should be all for it
Interesting. Does this mean that the betting odds posted on here are biased because the savviest bettors are systematically barred?
I suppose it depends how solid the market is. If Betfair exchange has traded millions on it, like the "Next President" market, bookies will be ok, if its "Who will win the constituency of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow?" and the underlying market has traded a tenner, then they are vary cagey
@ Malmesbury. PS, on the basis of your remarks about your wife's world view, you may enjoy the book "Immunity to Change" by Kegan and Laskow Lahey of Harvard's Graduate School of Education. It is both very enlightening and quite readable.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Man whose knee jerk style is to bellow about Nazis and anti English racism at any indy supporters (even when they're not discussing Scotland or including him in a convo) starts bleating about narrow minds & having a right to express an opinion. Peak PB Scotch expert.
You can express any opinion you like but have precisely zero right to expect me to take any of your attention seeking capering on this subject seriously.
Once again you prove my point. You infer I am not allowed to have an opinion on Scottish matters, even on how trends might change, and suggest that because (you assume) I am English I would use the prejudicial term "Scotch"? Have you any idea how that sounds? Yep, try and think about it. Oh, I didn't mention the Nazis, you did.
I'm not familiar with this polling company but couple of things stand out.
Ohio and Michigan both look too wide Florida looks about right to me, the closer we get the more I think Trump will win there The other polls look good for Biden in general PA again is looking that it may well be the decisive state. Finally,,,,101% in MIchigan,,,,,now thats voter enthusiasm! (i'm assuming some rounding up has been done)
I'll be a little less polite. These numbers, taken as a whole, made me snort. Particularly once I got to the MI numbers.
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
It's deeper than that - it's about world view and how we prioritise belief, evidence, emotion etc.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Our education and culture has done a huge disservice to us by promoting the idea that intellect over emotion is superior.
Decision-making without emotions is next to impossible, as we see from people with specific brain injuries which effectively sever the emotional brain from the rational brain. Motivation, emotion and motion all have the same etymological root for good reason - there is no motivation to act without emotion. And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions.
This idea that political decisions could, or should, be stripped of emotion, and that those who make political decisions based on numbers are somehow superior, is so, so wrong.
In short, the emotions of the stupid **** who voted [insert your pet peeve here - Trump, Brexit, Corbyn] are no less valid a political decision-making approach than an intellectual's dispassionate analysis of the competing menus of policies provided by the major parties.
As an atheist, I strongly believe that religious people have a right to factor their religion into their decision-making, and observe that religion, as with other cultural and personality issues, strongly influence decision-making at a subconscious level.
However, when it comes to organization of a safe society, society does have rights to protect itself from those with views that would hurt other parts of society. But that is a whole other, much longer conversation that I am still struggling with.
Absolutely.
The problem is that belief systems have limits.
I mentioned the other day the interesting interactions caused by staging a play of the "Cold Equations" at university. Some people were quite adamant that it was evil to make *any* choice. Quite a few stated that *the story* was "bad" because there wasn't a cosy choice - just "nasty" ones.
I'm not familiar with this polling company but couple of things stand out.
Ohio and Michigan both look too wide Florida looks about right to me, the closer we get the more I think Trump will win there The other polls look good for Biden in general PA again is looking that it may well be the decisive state. Finally,,,,101% in MIchigan,,,,,now thats voter enthusiasm! (i'm assuming some rounding up has been done)
Their surveys are quite small, just a few hundred per state so wide MoE.
I don't see Ohio being so divergent to other Great Lakes states such as Michigan. If Biden is comfortably ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin, it is hard to see Ohio being far different, albeit with a stronger Trump starting position.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
I don't recognise that description of Scottish nationalism from the time I lived in Scotland. I've always found the SNP and Greens to be progressive forces, erring on the side of woke rather than intolerant. I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things. All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
I suppose some circumstantial evidence would be that Farage, Griffin, Coburn, Galloway, McConnachie, BJ, Britain First, The Britannica Party, the LOO, the DUP, the EDL, UKIP and the BNP amongst others are very much on Nigel's 'side' of the argument. You'd think that might give someone pause for thought if they were capable of it.
Those numbers all look like someone held a pen, closed their eyes and marked some numbers on a preprinted sheet. All over the place and in all directions!
Those numbers all look like someone held a pen, closed their eyes and marked some numbers on a preprinted sheet. All over the place and in all directions!
"Swayable" already have a D- rating on 538. Presumably earned in a previous election?
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
It's deeper than that - it's about world view and how we prioritise belief, evidence, emotion etc.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Our education and culture has done a huge disservice to us by promoting the idea that intellect over emotion is superior.
Decision-making without emotions is next to impossible, as we see from people with specific brain injuries which effectively sever the emotional brain from the rational brain. Motivation, emotion and motion all have the same etymological root for good reason - there is no motivation to act without emotion. And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions.
This idea that political decisions could, or should, be stripped of emotion, and that those who make political decisions based on numbers are somehow superior, is so, so wrong.
In short, the emotions of the stupid **** who voted [insert your pet peeve here - Trump, Brexit, Corbyn] are no less valid a political decision-making approach than an intellectual's dispassionate analysis of the competing menus of policies provided by the major parties.
As an atheist, I strongly believe that religious people have a right to factor their religion into their decision-making, and observe that religion, as with other cultural and personality issues, strongly influence decision-making at a subconscious level.
However, when it comes to organization of a safe society, society does have rights to protect itself from those with views that would hurt other parts of society. But that is a whole other, much longer conversation that I am still struggling with.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. There is a lot that's uninspiring about technocracy, however competent. The triumphs of Johnson in 2016 and 2019 show the power of inspiration. But there's also that bit in 1984- I think the book within the book- pointing out how wars were useful at keeping leaders attached to reality. In many areas, you can say that 2+2=5 (or you can have your cake and eat it), but wishful thinking loses wars. Similarly, running a pandemic on the basis of what you would like to be true, not the best expert view of what is true, gets you into trouble.
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
It's deeper than that - it's about world view and how we prioritise belief, evidence, emotion etc.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Our education and culture has done a huge disservice to us by promoting the idea that intellect over emotion is superior.
Decision-making without emotions is next to impossible, as we see from people with specific brain injuries which effectively sever the emotional brain from the rational brain. Motivation, emotion and motion all have the same etymological root for good reason - there is no motivation to act without emotion. And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions.
This idea that political decisions could, or should, be stripped of emotion, and that those who make political decisions based on numbers are somehow superior, is so, so wrong.
In short, the emotions of the stupid **** who voted [insert your pet peeve here - Trump, Brexit, Corbyn] are no less valid a political decision-making approach than an intellectual's dispassionate analysis of the competing menus of policies provided by the major parties.
As an atheist, I strongly believe that religious people have a right to factor their religion into their decision-making, and observe that religion, as with other cultural and personality issues, strongly influence decision-making at a subconscious level.
However, when it comes to organization of a safe society, society does have rights to protect itself from those with views that would hurt other parts of society. But that is a whole other, much longer conversation that I am still struggling with.
I liked most of your post, but this bit bothered me: "And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions."
That is hugely reductive, and in many cases just plain wrong. Yes it can be true in some circumstances, but in others, the heuristics that speed up our decision making are notoriously bad at spotting paradigm shifts, and are hackable by those who use dark arts to persuade us. An example would be that some people would irrationally pass up a real bargain because of the don't-buy-the-last-item-left heuristic. You already know what I mean, but here it is anyway: a supermarket shelf is empty save the last item, and it's something you sort of wanted. You don't just pick it up and hoi it into your trolley like you would any other day. You check it. You're suspicious. Unconsciously, your brain is screaming out "this is the ONE item on the shelf that EVERYONE ELSE has rejected". You don't even think it "out loud", you just get a sense that, huh, maybe I don't want it after all. Even if the price is great. Perhaps especially if the price is great. That's not good decision making. Especially if you can see just as plain as everybody else that the item is fine. It just happens to be the last one left. The "rational" thing is to grab it and be thankful you got there just in time, yet you might not do that.
Those numbers all look like someone held a pen, closed their eyes and marked some numbers on a preprinted sheet. All over the place and in all directions!
Though i have little confidence in their methologies, to be fair , if you take out the Ohio and Michigan polls, the rest are not that far out from realistic figures, Trump up +5 in Florida is certainly possible for example But one for the 'look at again after the election' tray
Thick as bricks, the pair of them. And to think Laura Pidcock WAS the next LOTO.
They were the future once!
They might yet be the future yet.
Maybe the future Lord Corbyn knows of a safe Labour seat, not in the precarious North of England that Laura could slip into for her future leadership bid.
Would be a real challenge to make Islington North go Tory, but given her efforts in North West Durham I think she might be up to the task!
Someone tweeted yesterday that selection for Islington has started and Corbyn can't be on it as he is suspended. No idea whether this was fake or not though to be honest.
Rasmussen's final national poll in 2016 was Clinton +2%, so 0.5% swing to Biden and EC neck and neck if they are right again
I don't disagree. However relying on Rasmussen's stopped clock to tell the time correctly four years on is a stretch. Even the old clock winder himself Scott Rasmussen has departed the company.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
I don't recognise that description of Scottish nationalism from the time I lived in Scotland. I've always found the SNP and Greens to be progressive forces, erring on the side of woke rather than intolerant. I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things. All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
I suppose some circumstantial evidence would be that Farage, Griffin, Coburn, Galloway, McConnachie, BJ, Britain First, The Britannica Party, the LOO, the DUP, the EDL, UKIP and the BNP amongst others are very much on Nigel's 'side' of the argument. You'd think that might give someone pause for thought if they were capable of it.
Most of these political movements are essentially a mix of socialism (with possible exception of UKIP) and nationalism, but more importantly their support base define themselves by who they are and by often not so thinly disguised disdain for the groups or nationalities that fall outside their idea of utopia. For the Faragists it is the French, Germans, foreigners in general. For the Malcolmg type Nat it is the English, and anyone who criticises the SNP is a "Little Englander", and they have no right to even discuss anything to do with the Motherland.
I have spent plenty of time in Scotland (among many countries) and have Scottish relatives. I see Scottish Nationalism for what it is. Your clear belief in Scottish exceptionalism, and inability to accept the possibility that nationalism could possibly decline does little to disabuse me of this view. I don't doubt that there are some decent people that support Scottish Nationalism, but essentially it is a malign philosophy and it will never shake off its malign history. It has been nice debating with you, but I really must go and do some work. Have a nice weekend.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
Mm, that's true about the changes. But who would have cared about how England votes, other than the Tories of course? It's a different country anyway, and more so than ever now. It's what looks winnable in Scotland that counts for FPTP. Also - by definition most of their MPs would be new, without any incumbent bonus. And the one in place is atypical, if that isn't an absurd thing to say about a population size of one.
The dynamics are of course quite different for the Holyrood elections, but will SKS have come to a clear position on indy which people will - crucially - believe? In that respect he would need to keep the SLAB types under control. Who would go berserk, most of them, at anything less than full patriotic Britishness. Which brings me to the other issue with Scottish Labour is that there is an unresolved contradiction. It's supposed to be but isn't really a standalone organization (the electoral law had to be fiddled by Labour to allow it to call itself 'Scottish Labour'). So the leader is in a difficult position vis a vis the head honcho in London. Yet, again, if the h. h. SKS orders him about, the SLAB leader can invoke his position, pretendy as it may be, to defy SKS (bit like the Scottish Tory leader is pretending to be independent of London and criticise it at the moment). Not sure where that leaves the Labour Party, especially as Mr Leonard has seen off his challengers for the foreseeable future (which surprised me,and which says a great deal about the challengers).
Two points. First I seriously doubt that there really is a great appetite across Scotland for another period of extended constitutional wrangling. Memories of the bitter divisions caused by the 2014 Referendum remain painful - as well as the post- Brexit torture suffered across the UK as a whole. The behaviour of Johnson will have provoked a strong emotional desire for an alternative - and that will have been reinforced by Sturgeon's relatively surefooted response faced with the ongoing Covid agony.Johnson is already widely discredited now across the UK, and his departure is likely to remove much of the emotional need for an alternative. Second I doubt that the personality of the SLab leader matters as much as you imply.Certainly it has significance for Holyrood - but far fewer turn out for that election anyway, which in itself is an indication that Westminster elections are viewed as more important to Scottish voters and accordingly treated more seriously.
While I think the recovery of UK Labour will certainly help them in a GE in Scotland - possibly quite dramatically in terms of seats won - I can't see it doing much for them so far as the Holyrood one next year is concerned.
So, given that we are likely to see a pro-Indy majority but an utter refusal by Boris to grant a referendum, much will depend on whether that merely triggers even more agitation (quite understandably) or - and I think this is not impossible - the whole Indy thing goes off the boil. Steaming away until 2024 may prove difficult to sustain, particularly if the focus turns to jobs and services.
Someone over at RCP must be having a very long brunch and I don't blame them the way the election is panning our for their Donald. But I'm sure they'll put all of today's polls up soon and not just Trafalgar, Rasmussen and IBD ....
Reading through the IBD latest poll I found this interesting comment
"Today's Trump vs. Biden poll finds Biden up by 26 points in blue states and Trump leading by 11 points in red states. Yet the two are tied at 48% in swing states. To be sure, those differentials reflect smaller samples, especially the swing state total, which comes with a wide credibility interval."
Now of course the samples as they say are much smaller than full state polls but it does feed into this narrative of Biden being so far up nationally due to increasing his vote in both blue and red states but not in the swing states. I'm still not convinced of this but you can see why the narrative for a Trump win even more against the odds than 2016 is possible.
Someone over at RCP must be having a very long brunch and I don't blame them the way the election is panning our for their Donald. But I'm sure they'll put all of today's polls up soon and not just Trafalgar, Rasmussen and IBD ....
You could have forecast the election in 2016 pretty accurately by just using Rasmussen and IBD for the popular vote and Trafalgar in the swing states and not bothering to look at any other pollsters
@ Malmesbury. PS, on the basis of your remarks about your wife's world view, you may enjoy the book "Immunity to Change" by Kegan and Laskow Lahey of Harvard's Graduate School of Education. It is both very enlightening and quite readable.
Someone over at RCP must be having a very long brunch and I don't blame them the way the election is panning our for their Donald. But I'm sure they'll put all of today's polls up soon and not just Trafalgar, Rasmussen and IBD ....
You could have forecast the election in 2016 pretty accurately by just using Rasmussen and IBD for the popular vote and Trafalgar in the swing states and not bothering to look at any other pollsters
No you couldn't. Trafalgar had a poor election. You need to look at all the claims of six they made and not just the ones were it randomly happened to land on a six.
Someone over at RCP must be having a very long brunch and I don't blame them the way the election is panning our for their Donald. But I'm sure they'll put all of today's polls up soon and not just Trafalgar, Rasmussen and IBD ....
You could have forecast the election in 2016 pretty accurately by just using Rasmussen and IBD for the popular vote and Trafalgar in the swing states and not bothering to look at any other pollsters
Your new election 2020 irony meter has just exploded ....
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
I don't recognise that description of Scottish nationalism from the time I lived in Scotland. I've always found the SNP and Greens to be progressive forces, erring on the side of woke rather than intolerant. I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things. All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
You can guarantee that he is spouting utter claptrap, never changes the record, someone must have pulled his pigtails when he visited Scotland, if he ever did or it is not just another fantasy.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
I was ambivalent about devolution at the time, though I think it was poorly thought through, rushed, and asymmetric and we are now living with the consequences. I spent a lot of time in Scotland at the time and can understand why they wanted it. Scottish nationalism is though, a pretty nasty equivalent of UKIP at best and the EDL at worst. It is based on division and, as I mentioned above, largely dependent for its support on whipping up dislike or unabashed hatred of the English. It needs to be called out for what it is, but a lot of people are a bit embarrassed to do so, because people such as the poster above will tell you that you have no right to do so as you are not Scottish, or perhaps if you are Scottish you are really English.
I don't recognise that description of Scottish nationalism from the time I lived in Scotland. I've always found the SNP and Greens to be progressive forces, erring on the side of woke rather than intolerant. I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things. All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
I suppose some circumstantial evidence would be that Farage, Griffin, Coburn, Galloway, McConnachie, BJ, Britain First, The Britannica Party, the LOO, the DUP, the EDL, UKIP and the BNP amongst others are very much on Nigel's 'side' of the argument. You'd think that might give someone pause for thought if they were capable of it.
Most of these political movements are essentially a mix of socialism (with possible exception of UKIP) and nationalism, but more importantly their support base define themselves by who they are and by often not so thinly disguised disdain for the groups or nationalities that fall outside their idea of utopia. For the Faragists it is the French, Germans, foreigners in general. For the Malcolmg type Nat it is the English, and anyone who criticises the SNP is a "Little Englander", and they have no right to even discuss anything to do with the Motherland.
I have spent plenty of time in Scotland (among many countries) and have Scottish relatives. I see Scottish Nationalism for what it is. Your clear belief in Scottish exceptionalism, and inability to accept the possibility that nationalism could possibly decline does little to disabuse me of this view. I don't doubt that there are some decent people that support Scottish Nationalism, but essentially it is a malign philosophy and it will never shake off its malign history. It has been nice debating with you, but I really must go and do some work. Have a nice weekend.
You are a complete moron , I have never ever said anything against the English. A lying little toerag. It is creeps like you I dislike, pompous little prigs who try to sound superior. You could probably not find your way to Scotland if someone tied you into the London to Glasgow Express. Off you go and collect your jobseekers allowance.
Someone over at RCP must be having a very long brunch and I don't blame them the way the election is panning our for their Donald. But I'm sure they'll put all of today's polls up soon and not just Trafalgar, Rasmussen and IBD ....
You could have forecast the election in 2016 pretty accurately by just using Rasmussen and IBD for the popular vote and Trafalgar in the swing states and not bothering to look at any other pollsters
No you couldn't. Trafalgar had a poor election. You need to look at all the claims of six they made and not just the ones were it randomly happened to land on a six.
Trafalgar the only pollster to have Trump winning Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus the EC
looking dire for the unionists nowadays, 6 out of 8 regions for independence by a fair margin
Given Boris will ban indyref2 while he is PM who cares and given Sunak and Starmer are more popular than Boris in Scotland anyway if they take over that margin will recede
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
Mm, that's true about the changes. But who would have cared about how England votes, other than the Tories of course? It's a different country anyway, and more so than ever now. It's what looks winnable in Scotland that counts for FPTP. Also - by definition most of their MPs would be new, without any incumbent bonus. And the one in place is atypical, if that isn't an absurd thing to say about a population size of one.
The dynamics are of course quite different for the Holyrood elections, but will SKS have come to a clear position on indy which people will - crucially - believe? In that respect he would need to keep the SLAB types under control. Who would go berserk, most of them, at anything less than full patriotic Britishness. Which brings me to the other issue with Scottish Labour is that there is an unresolved contradiction. It's supposed to be but isn't really a standalone organization (the electoral law had to be fiddled by Labour to allow it to call itself 'Scottish Labour'). So the leader is in a difficult position vis a vis the head honcho in London. Yet, again, if the h. h. SKS orders him about, the SLAB leader can invoke his position, pretendy as it may be, to defy SKS (bit like the Scottish Tory leader is pretending to be independent of London and criticise it at the moment). Not sure where that leaves the Labour Party, especially as Mr Leonard has seen off his challengers for the foreseeable future (which surprised me,and which says a great deal about the challengers).
Two points. First I seriously doubt that there really is a great appetite across Scotland for another period of extended constitutional wrangling. Memories of the bitter divisions caused by the 2014 Referendum remain painful - as well as the post- Brexit torture suffered across the UK as a whole. The behaviour of Johnson will have provoked a strong emotional desire for an alternative - and that will have been reinforced by Sturgeon's relatively surefooted response faced with the ongoing Covid agony.Johnson is already widely discredited now across the UK, and his departure is likely to remove much of the emotional need for an alternative. Second I doubt that the personality of the SLab leader matters as much as you imply.Certainly it has significance for Holyrood - but far fewer turn out for that election anyway, which in itself is an indication that Westminster elections are viewed as more important to Scottish voters and accordingly treated more seriously.
While I think the recovery of UK Labour will certainly help them in a GE in Scotland - possibly quite dramatically in terms of seats won - I can't see it doing much for them so far as the Holyrood one next year is concerned.
So, given that we are likely to see a pro-Indy majority but an utter refusal by Boris to grant a referendum, much will depend on whether that merely triggers even more agitation (quite understandably) or - and I think this is not impossible - the whole Indy thing goes off the boil. Steaming away until 2024 may prove difficult to sustain, particularly if the focus turns to jobs and services.
I don't think Labour are likely to do very well at Holyrood next year but they are still likely to get around 16-18% of the list vote IMO and win a few constituency seats such as Dumbarton (where the SNP are in civil war), Edinburgh Southern and East Lothian plus possibly Cowdenbeath and Rutherglen.
An SNP majority is not likely on the basis of comres polling and it wouldn't take a huge amount of tactical voting to narrowly deny SNP and Greens a majority.
There are criticisms of Scottish Labour but I don't think the SNP's 'branch office' criticisms will be work so well as Labour could use Starmer's relative popularity with some sections of the electorate to its advantage (specifically unionists who liked Ruth Davidson but not Boris Johnson) .
I don't think Starmer has a proper strategy with regard to Scotland but he is avoiding being personally divisive unlike Ian Murray/Jackie Baillie nor being naive/jumping the gun and giving credibility to the idea that a 2nd referendum will occur between now and 2024, just sitting back and looking to appear above the fray.
Comments
Therefore you delay introducing restrictions until the last possible moment, and you bias towards hoping for the best until proved otherwise.
The implementation seems entirely consistent with the strategy. You'd be better off arguing for a different strategy, and then what actions follow from that strategy.
I try to be factually driven. This drives my wife nuts on occasions - she wants the world, sometimes, to be as she thinks it should be. The other day - a minor tax matter. Yes, HMRC stupid, bad etc. But the tax is the tax. So I got advice from a professional, and paid. Still get mutters of "but it shouldn't be so".
When I think about COVID restrictions, restrictions "win" over what I want.
But there are many, many people, for whom the world does not work like this. Their emotional needs and desires have primacy over nonsense numbers. This is not because they are bad people or irrational. It's a different worldview.
Maybe the future Lord Corbyn knows of a safe Labour seat, not in the precarious North of England that Laura could slip into for her future leadership bid.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1322185209673113601?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1322186413438308356?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1322186658398244865?s=20
I've definitely seen a few numpties on social media.. something to do with the Seed of Gael or something like that. Those people smell of fascists, but it seems clear to me that's a tiny minority, similar to the tiny minority of fascists you get on the unionist side of things.
All of the above is experience rather than evidence, but then again, so are your posts. I wonder if we have any solid evidence for or against what you're saying?
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
You can express any opinion you like but have precisely zero right to expect me to take any of your attention seeking capering on this subject seriously.
Decision-making without emotions is next to impossible, as we see from people with specific brain injuries which effectively sever the emotional brain from the rational brain. Motivation, emotion and motion all have the same etymological root for good reason - there is no motivation to act without emotion. And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions.
This idea that political decisions could, or should, be stripped of emotion, and that those who make political decisions based on numbers are somehow superior, is so, so wrong.
In short, the emotions of the stupid **** who voted [insert your pet peeve here - Trump, Brexit, Corbyn] are no less valid a political decision-making approach than an intellectual's dispassionate analysis of the competing menus of policies provided by the major parties.
As an atheist, I strongly believe that religious people have a right to factor their religion into their decision-making, and observe that religion, as with other cultural and personality issues, strongly influence decision-making at a subconscious level.
However, when it comes to organization of a safe society, society does have rights to protect itself from those with views that would hurt other parts of society. But that is a whole other, much longer conversation that I am still struggling with.
Ohio and Michigan both look too wide
Florida looks about right to me, the closer we get the more I think Trump will win there
The other polls look good for Biden in general
PA again is looking that it may well be the decisive state.
Finally,,,,101% in MIchigan,,,,,now thats voter enthusiasm! (i'm assuming some rounding up has been done)
Anyway where's Farage been so far ?
Wisconsin, Arizona and Michigan ? I've got those 3 down as highly likely Dem gains.
The problem is that belief systems have limits.
I mentioned the other day the interesting interactions caused by staging a play of the "Cold Equations" at university. Some people were quite adamant that it was evil to make *any* choice. Quite a few stated that *the story* was "bad" because there wasn't a cosy choice - just "nasty" ones.
I don't see Ohio being so divergent to other Great Lakes states such as Michigan. If Biden is comfortably ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin, it is hard to see Ohio being far different, albeit with a stronger Trump starting position.
There is a lot that's uninspiring about technocracy, however competent. The triumphs of Johnson in 2016 and 2019 show the power of inspiration.
But there's also that bit in 1984- I think the book within the book- pointing out how wars were useful at keeping leaders attached to reality. In many areas, you can say that 2+2=5 (or you can have your cake and eat it), but wishful thinking loses wars. Similarly, running a pandemic on the basis of what you would like to be true, not the best expert view of what is true, gets you into trouble.
"And research into decision-making in truly complex situations shows that those who make decisions based on subconscious pattern-recognition and emotion, rather than rational analysis, make better decisions."
That is hugely reductive, and in many cases just plain wrong. Yes it can be true in some circumstances, but in others, the heuristics that speed up our decision making are notoriously bad at spotting paradigm shifts, and are hackable by those who use dark arts to persuade us. An example would be that some people would irrationally pass up a real bargain because of the don't-buy-the-last-item-left heuristic. You already know what I mean, but here it is anyway: a supermarket shelf is empty save the last item, and it's something you sort of wanted. You don't just pick it up and hoi it into your trolley like you would any other day. You check it. You're suspicious. Unconsciously, your brain is screaming out "this is the ONE item on the shelf that EVERYONE ELSE has rejected". You don't even think it "out loud", you just get a sense that, huh, maybe I don't want it after all. Even if the price is great. Perhaps especially if the price is great.
That's not good decision making. Especially if you can see just as plain as everybody else that the item is fine. It just happens to be the last one left. The "rational" thing is to grab it and be thankful you got there just in time, yet you might not do that.
But one for the 'look at again after the election' tray
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1322171234143055872?s=20
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/311099-skeptical-70000-black-voters-abstained-from
Fuck a duck.
I have spent plenty of time in Scotland (among many countries) and have Scottish relatives. I see Scottish Nationalism for what it is. Your clear belief in Scottish exceptionalism, and inability to accept the possibility that nationalism could possibly decline does little to disabuse me of this view. I don't doubt that there are some decent people that support Scottish Nationalism, but essentially it is a malign philosophy and it will never shake off its malign history. It has been nice debating with you, but I really must go and do some work. Have a nice weekend.
So, given that we are likely to see a pro-Indy majority but an utter refusal by Boris to grant a referendum, much will depend on whether that merely triggers even more agitation (quite understandably) or - and I think this is not impossible - the whole Indy thing goes off the boil. Steaming away until 2024 may prove difficult to sustain, particularly if the focus turns to jobs and services.
"Today's Trump vs. Biden poll finds Biden up by 26 points in blue states and Trump leading by 11 points in red states. Yet the two are tied at 48% in swing states. To be sure, those differentials reflect smaller samples, especially the swing state total, which comes with a wide credibility interval."
Now of course the samples as they say are much smaller than full state polls but it does feed into this narrative of Biden being so far up nationally due to increasing his vote in both blue and red states but not in the swing states.
I'm still not convinced of this but you can see why the narrative for a Trump win even more against the odds than 2016 is possible.
It is interesting how differing world views work.
You could probably not find your way to Scotland if someone tied you into the London to Glasgow Express. Off you go and collect your jobseekers allowance.
16-18% of the list vote IMO and win a few constituency seats such as Dumbarton (where the SNP are in civil war), Edinburgh Southern and East Lothian plus possibly Cowdenbeath and Rutherglen.
An SNP majority is not likely on the basis of comres polling and it wouldn't take a huge amount of tactical voting to narrowly deny SNP and Greens a majority.
There are criticisms of Scottish Labour but I don't think the SNP's 'branch office' criticisms will be work so well as Labour could use Starmer's relative popularity with some sections of the electorate to its advantage (specifically unionists who liked Ruth Davidson but not Boris Johnson) .
I don't think Starmer has a proper strategy with regard to Scotland but he is avoiding being personally divisive unlike Ian Murray/Jackie Baillie nor being naive/jumping the gun and giving credibility to the idea that a 2nd referendum will occur between now and 2024, just sitting back and looking to appear above the fray.
not so new thread?