Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Leader and government approval ratings and voting intention as a guide to general election results –

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited February 18 in General
imageLeader and government approval ratings and voting intention as a guide to general election results – politicalbetting.com

Some posters to this site have argued that leader or government approval ratings can be a better guide to general election results than the voting intention question, if not immediately before the vote, then early in the Parliament or in mid-term.  I have been meaning for some time to put this to the test.  I have used the IPSOS-MORI opinion poll and approval ratings data, which goes back to 1977, covering 11 general elections. 

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029
    First - as I suspect the Tories will be in 2023.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K population

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK local R

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK deaths

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK R

    from case data

    image
    image

    From hospitalisation data

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    Age related data

    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    UK vaccinations

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • Fascinating article thank you.

    So gross approval does better than net approval at all intervals bar one?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,428

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,931
    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,534


    Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?

  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,727
    edited February 18

    Fascinating article thank you.

    So gross approval does better than net approval at all intervals bar one?

    Thank you.

    Just about, but really on such a small sample size and with R2s below 0.5 for all except the 3-year one, the difference is nugatory.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029
    algarkirk said:



    Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?

    Given the url and serve you access the document from I would suggest that it's accurate as the other options are way worse.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    algarkirk said:



    Is the document this links to by any chance an elaborate spoof?

    MI5 must have hacked the www.gov.scot website.......
  • Regarding Sturgeon's flags surely this is a Third Way compromise?

    Scotland's out of Europe but can fly the EU Council of Europe flag.
    Scotland's in the UK but doesn't need to fly the UK flag.

    Scotland can just cosplay as an independent EU nation without needing to bother with a messy referendum.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996
    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093
    eek said:

    First - as I suspect the Tories will be in 2023.

    If the Tories achieve that sort of first, Keir Starmer will be Mr Happy.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,769
    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Crumblies will soon have dived below the 45-64s too.....

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    One rather suspects that's the entire point......
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 914

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 46,532
    Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504

    I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet

    His next job could be in ballet.
  • DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 590

    Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"

    Isn't Wolfgang's comment meant to be ironic?
  • Sometime before end of Feb, deaths will be very low indeed.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 36,286

    Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"

    That's German sarcasm.

    There's been yet more BS in the European press today about AstraZeneca and their contracts with the UK.
  • ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    First - as I suspect the Tories will be in 2023.

    If the Tories achieve that sort of first, Keir Starmer will be Mr Happy.
    That'll be Sir Happy to you.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,737
    Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.
  • Define "success" - I wouldn't count "fewer vaccinated people" as "success"

    That's German sarcasm.

    There's been yet more BS in the European press today about AstraZeneca and their contracts with the UK.
    The new Comical Ali idea is that the EU signed their contract with AZ before the UK did. When the UK did theirs right at the start as part of the AZ/OU tie-up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,313
    edited February 18
    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.

    There's been hints to that in the past. I think the idea is that away from the heat and fury of the election people's truer feelings are revealed.

    Obviously it May not always apply.
  • FPT Re flags

    merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.
    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.

    See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
    See above.
    She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?

    Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
    On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.
    Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.

    Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.

    I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.

    https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,068
    edited February 18
    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 12,239

    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

    Don't tell Macron.....
  • FPT
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.
    Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.
    He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.

    While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.

    Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
    Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".

    Do we have a category prize for this?
    I am not and never have been a Farage voter.
    Apart from voting for a party led by him.
    I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.

    I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
    I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.
    What point are you trying to make?

    I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
    The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.
    I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.

    I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.

    Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".

    Do you see the difference?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504
    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.

    Maybe.
    Or maybe folk make their minds up earlier than we think. They then waver a bit on and off, before reverting to their earlier position.
    Its possible at least.
  • FPT Re flags

    merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.

    See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
    See above.
    She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?

    Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
    On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.
    Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.

    Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.

    I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.

    https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html
    They're not allowed to fly the EU flag without permission.

    But they can fly the Council of Europe flag without permission.

    They just so happen to be the same flag.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 914
    edited February 18

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.
    Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.

    Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.

  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,667
    Honestly, N=11 prevents any definitive statements, though one can of course spot any clear yes or no situations. Like the US presidential election trivia about Ohio and so on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    First - as I suspect the Tories will be in 2023.

    If the Tories achieve that sort of first, Keir Starmer will be Mr Happy.
    That'll be Sir Happy to you.
    You’re right, I was a bit Keirless there.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,029
    edited February 18

    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

    One thing none of the initial tests did was identify in any real detail what the best vaccination profile (1 dose or 2 doses, and if 2 how many weeks apart) due to the time constraints.

    So I'm not surprised we are only finding out now that other dosage patterns may be better or at least equally efficient.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093
    dixiedean said:

    I wonder if Dom Cummings has managed to get his Cyber apprenticeship yet

    His next job could be in ballet.
    Moving in intricate patterns for no obvious reason with a load of cock on display sounds just his line, in fairness.
  • FPT Re flags

    merely to answer Doug's question rather than giving any opinion on Sturgeon's claimed instructions.

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Well, that’s my default assumption for anything Staines publishes. Apart from anything else, it would seem daft and Sturgeon is many things but not daft.

    See if anyone vaguely sane runs with it.
    See above.
    She is losing her marbles then. Why fly the EU flag when you are not a member of it and likely never will be?

    Will be interesting to see if she is overruled on this.
    On what grounds? I am not aware of any formal UK flag code in the sense of the one they have in the States.
    Yep there are rules - but in good old British tradition they are local planning rules rather than anything more national.

    Basically there are a set of flags that can be flown without needing planning permission - national and regional flags and the flags of organisations the UK is a member of. All other flags count as advertising banners and so need planning permission.

    I suspect that now we are no longer a member a strict interpretation would say that flying the EU flag is not allowed with explicit planning permission. Though why anyone should be so exercised by it I don't know.

    https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/legal/flags/index.html
    They're not allowed to fly the EU flag without permission.

    But they can fly the Council of Europe flag without permission.

    They just so happen to be the same flag.
    Problem solved then. :)
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 985
    FPT..

    My point in relation to the flag issue is that surely this seems like a weird misstep from Sturgeon that alienates some of the no leaning voters she needs to win over.

    Either that or SNP tensions are so great she’s chucking any old red meat out
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093
    eek said:
    That’s an absolutely awful attempt at defence. By that logic, everyone who freezes to death or gets cholera or indeed commits suicide is doing everyone else a favour by ceasing to use resources.

    What Cruz has done is the height of folly on so many levels I struggle to believe even he thought it was a good idea.

    Not that I’m terribly sorry he’s destroyed himself like this, because he’s not a good thing, but it is still extraordinarily tin eared.
  • ydoethur said:

    eek said:
    That’s an absolutely awful attempt at defence. By that logic, everyone who freezes to death or gets cholera or indeed commits suicide is doing everyone else a favour by ceasing to use resources.

    What Cruz has done is the height of folly on so many levels I struggle to believe even he thought it was a good idea.

    Not that I’m terribly sorry he’s destroyed himself like this, because he’s not a good thing, but it is still extraordinarily tin eared.
    I like the implicit statement that Cruz is so bloody useless at his job there's nothing he could be doing to make things better for his constituents.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,428
    edited February 18

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.
    Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.

    Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.

    It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The first dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kept falling as they were they would have crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 39,354
    MaxPB said:

    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

    Have to say the UK has been at the forefront of this and I'm actually very proud of the government and our scientific establishment for holding firm against criticism from Pfizer, the WHO, the BMA and the EU over the last few months about this policy choice. It's very obvious that there is huge potential to save lives using this dosing method as you get double the number of people with a good ebough level of immunity at around 70% vs 95% for half the people.
    To be fair to Pfizer, weren't they simply pointing out that their clinical trial did not have the 12 week gap the government has used?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 13,103
    edited February 18
    eek said:
    This is the kinda thing @HYUFD would come out with
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    MaxPB said:

    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    The second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine could be delayed in order to cover all priority groups as the first one is highly protective, two Canada-based researchers said in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

    Have to say the UK has been at the forefront of this and I'm actually very proud of the government and our scientific establishment for holding firm against criticism from Pfizer, the WHO, the BMA and the EU over the last few months about this policy choice. It's very obvious that there is huge potential to save lives using this dosing method as you get double the number of people with a good ebough level of immunity at around 70% vs 95% for half the people.
    To be fair to Pfizer, weren't they simply pointing out that their clinical trial did not have the 12 week gap the government has used?
    Yes, the Prizer pre-approval trials all used a three week gap, whereas normally you’d expect some experimentation at this stage, which is happening now in the ‘wild’.

    It was a big call by the U.K. authorities to extend the gap, but it does now seem like they called it right.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

    I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

    Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,129
    @Fishing

    Good header, and well done. You are though 'fishing'! It's not reasonable to support a hypothesis that you have arrived at with the same data that caused you to to make the assertion.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,504

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    Thanks for following this.
    So I don't have to.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,850
    Great article btw, love a bit of statistical analysis!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,428
    ydoethur said:

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

    I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

    Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
    Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996
    edited February 18

    FPT..

    My point in relation to the flag issue is that surely this seems like a weird misstep from Sturgeon that alienates some of the no leaning voters she needs to win over.

    Either that or SNP tensions are so great she’s chucking any old red meat out

    It seems to me that she's hoping for some sort of harrumphing, heavy-handed Boris response to try and force her to 'FLY THE BRITISH FLAG', so she can manufacture a spat with the forces of proud Edward.

    He should of course do the opposite and let her fly whatever flags she likes.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,506
    edited February 18
    In the years leading up to the 2015 general election, Ed Miliband was always miles behind David Cameron in approval ratings, even when Labour were slightly ahead or (eventually) level pegging in the polls. Yet no-one was arguing that this meant that the Conservatives were going to win the 2015 election by a landslide (and they didn't). However, there was an argument made that Miliband's ratings were so poor that a minimal Labour lead in the polls might in fact be understating the strength of the Conservative position.

    The question is - is looking at leadership polling in combination with raw opinion poll lead likely to give you a better idea of an outcome of a general election than just looking at the raw opinion poll lead alone. I think it does, but Fishing's analysis isn't specified to test this.

    It would be interesting to see the result if Fishing repeated the analysis with the gross or net "PM leader over Opp leader approval" margin AVERAGED in combination (either 1:1 or in a different ratio) with the "Gvt opinion poll lead". Would it give an improvement on the R squared than that obtained for the "Gvt opinion poll lead" alone?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 18,667

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.
    Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.
    He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.

    While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.

    Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
    Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".

    Do we have a category prize for this?
    I am not and never have been a Farage voter.
    Apart from voting for a party led by him.
    I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.

    I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
    I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.
    What point are you trying to make?

    I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
    The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.
    I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.

    I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.

    Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".

    Do you see the difference?
    I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.

    You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous. :smile:
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,129
    Lammy....
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 914
    edited February 18
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.
    Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.

    Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.

    It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The fitst dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kep falling as they were they wold ahve crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.
    Given at least 20% were getting it in hospital, you'd hope that vaccinating the staff would have had an impact. Though that might well have made a difference before lockdown given it was done quite early in proceedings.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 723

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    What's also interesting about this, is that it is not the only case of this kind. A number of commentators, previously sympathetic to the nationalist case, Iain Macwhirter, Mandy Rhodes, et al, are openly expressing horror at the deterioration in the standards of governance in Scotland. It's not clear what, if any, will be the political consequences.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,679

    eek said:
    This is the kinda thing @HYUFD would come out with
    Distinct lack of assertion about polling....
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,996
    dixiedean said:

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    Thanks for following this.
    So I don't have to.
    You're welcome, but you should read Salmond's evidence - it's actually incredibly juicy for a political story. The machinations are worthy of House of Cards - and the stakes! They would have actually sent Salmond, their former leading light, to jail as a sex pest! It really doesn't get much more raw and ragged.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,428

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    I, for one, am looking forwards once more to people trying to read a signal from noisy exponential decay.
    Ha! True. But so much depends on it. Though we are hoping for better than exponential decay this time what with the vaccine deployment.

    Cases have definitely flatlined here in the flatlands.

    It's too early for the vaccines to show anything much. The fitst dose was given to anyone on 8 December. That may seem like an eternity but it was actually only just over 9 weeks ago. The programme only got into its stride at the New Year. If cases kep falling as they were they wold ahve crashed into zero in about three weeks. A normal distribution curve will flatten at the edge. So long as the cases keep dropping until the vaccines really start to have an effect on the working age population then that should suffice.
    Given at least 20% were getting it in hospital, you'd hope that vaccinating the staff would have had an impact. Though that might well have made a difference before lockdown given it was done quite early in proceedings.
    It probably has had an impact given the remarkable drop we've seen in the last few weeks. As I say for that to have continued would have been statistically very improbable indeed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,093
    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

    I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

    Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
    Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?
    Well, that’s what I would have thought, although I obviously wouldn’t know for definite.

    @DavidL are you able to help us here?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,129
    Omnium said:

    Lammy....

    Annoying that he's getting better. Only a few nailed on Tory votes this time.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,077
    It's probably a bad idea and could potentially stoke up racial tensions, but I had a mad idea for a videa to promote BAME take-up of vaccination.

    Start with news stories about rich and powerful people jumping the queue (like that casino owner who flew to the Yukon to pretend to be a native American to get the vaccine earlier, or politicians in some countries making sure they get vaccinated first).

    Then have BAME people saying:

    - "No, let some rich white guy have mine; I'll just go to the back of the queue."
    - "No, I've fallen for the propaganda online that's meant to turn me off this, so someone richer can get further up the queue"
    - "No, we shouldn't forget those poor white millionaires who want theirs sooner."
    - "It's fine, I'll take my chance with slowly choking to death."

    Finishing with a trusted BAME celebrity saying: "If you want to fall for it and give up your place in line, that's up to you. Me, well, when it's my turn - without jumping the queue - anyone gets in my way and they'll have footprints on them."

    And words written on it: "Take what's yours. Take your shot."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456
  • ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    So the one body that wasn't stuffed with SNP and Green members (an accidental omission one assumes), votes that there is no reason why documents that may be published legally, may not be published legally. Surprise surprise.
    Am I the only one who is completely lost with all this?

    Let me try and help.

    1. This committee was set up to investigate why the initial complaints procedure (prior to the police case) against Alex Salmond was so mishandled that the Scottish Government ended up having to pay him £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is lead by an SNP MSP, and has on it an SNP/Green majority of 5 to 4.

    2. Alex Salmond's allegation (made very powerfully it must be said) is that the complaints were deliberately orchestrated, pushed, exaggerated, and to some extent invented, with the intention of destroying his reputation and preventing him ever returning to front-line politics. He also alleges that Nicola Sturgeon misled the SP about the nature of her meetings with him.

    3. Salmond has submitted evidence of the above to the enquiry, but they have thus far refused to publish it (not parts of it - all of it), so it cannot form part of their report. They have also warned Salmond that if his verbal evidence strays into proscribed areas, he could be subject to criminal prosecution - without actually telling him what areas to stay clear of. The refusal to publish is based on a court order by Lady Dorrian, trial judge in Salmond's sexual assault case, protecting (I think) the complainants' identities.

    4. The Spectator brought a legal case to modify this court order and prove that Salmond's evidence could indeed be published. Heard by Lady Dorrian, who stated that the Scottish Government's interpretation of her order to prevent Salmond's evidence being published was 'absurd'. She amended her court order to allow publication.

    5. Despite this, and the evidence being published by the Spectator, the enquiry still refused to publish the evidence, but did agree to hand the issue to the SP procedural committee for adjudication.

    6. This committee has now declared it is legal to publish. Salmond will now be able to testify without threat of criminal proceedings against him.

    They threatened him with prosecution over verbal evidence to a parliamentary committee?

    I thought that in itself would be illegal as such occasions are privileged?

    Certainly Westminster has got very hot and bothered when threats are made to witnesses in their inquiries.
    Evidence to a Westminster Parliamentary committee is privileged. Surely that would be the same at Holyrood?
    Well, that’s what I would have thought, although I obviously wouldn’t know for definite.

    @DavidL are you able to help us here?
    The Sunday Times had an article a while back which said Holyrood doesn't enjoy the same protections as Westminster.
  • Interesting work Fishing.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,727

    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting header. Seems really weird to me that correlations might be stronger further away from an election.

    There's been hints to that in the past. I think the idea is that away from the heat and fury of the election people's truer feelings are revealed.

    Yes, the midterm slump is no illusion, but not necessarily a guide to the main event.
  • kinabalu said:

    FPT

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Plenty of time. But he does need something of his to really catch people's attention and fix an image in peoples' minds. Goodness knows what though.
    Starmer is awful, dull and clueless, as his actions in 2019 demonstrated.
    He's also a nasty arsehole careerist.

    While MPs like Luciana Berger were getting bullied out of the Labour Party he chose to serve in the Shadow Cabinet to further his own career and put forward Corbyn as PM.

    Only those who refused to serve under Corbyn should have been considered as possible Labour Party leaders. A Labour led by Yvette Cooper would be a credible threat right now.
    Farage voter says that Keir Starmer is "nasty".

    Do we have a category prize for this?
    I am not and never have been a Farage voter.
    Apart from voting for a party led by him.
    I voted to leave the EU, have the British contingent of the European Parliament abolished and Farage tossed out as an elected politician as a result, yes.

    I'd do it again. No regrets from voting to evict Farage.
    I've never eaten chocolate but I once purchased a 99 and with great relish consumed the flake.
    What point are you trying to make?

    I voted to evict Farage from the European Parliament. If he ever found his way into Westminster and I had a way to evict him from that I'd be quite tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
    The point I'm making is that when I see a person who (i) is prepared to vote - even once - for a Farage party and yet (ii) claims to have been so mortified by the xenophobia showed by Theresa May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech and her "Go Home" vans that they resign from the Tory Party, I smell a rat. Not accusing you of anything terrible. You're an excellent poster in many ways. But I am deeply skeptical of some of what you proclaim as your "principles". It doesn't entirely scan to me. I think you're driven mainly by EngNat.
    I have never voted for Farage to be elected to a Parliament.

    I have once voted for Farage to be ejected from a Parliament.

    Like a reality TV show when it flips between "vote to evict" and "vote to save".

    Do you see the difference?
    I get the circumstances, yes, and my conclusion is unchanged. I read you as an unusual mix of Market Fundamentalist and English Nationalist who sometimes pops a button or two when attempting to meld all that together in a way that is consistent and avoids its less savoury aspects.

    You should be flattered I'm interested in you. Other posters will be jealous. :smile:
    I am a free marketeer and liberal. I am very libertarian. Disappointed in you that you completely omitted social liberalism in any sense.

    But yes I am an English nationalist, I don't hide that nor is there a contradiction.

    Everyone is a nationalist to some degree. The only question is where you put the nation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nationalism whatsoever and most "sins" supposedly to do with nationalism are actually about imperialism, I am not an imperialist.
  • I've got a joke about Oedipus and Midas to tell you all.

    It is motherfucking gold.

    (Sorry for the potty mouth.)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.
    See the local area case data...


  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,727
    EPG said:

    Honestly, N=11 prevents any definitive statements, though one can of course spot any clear yes or no situations. Like the US presidential election trivia about Ohio and so on.

    Very true. That's why I used the 0.7 threshold rather than 0.5 that people sometimes use for noisier data. I wanted to be reasonably sure of any relationships observed. Also, though I didn't have space to go into this in the header, I looked at the t- and p-stats and so on to try to spot spurious correlations.

    I think the 0.9 correlation for the pre-election opinion poll is pretty clear, though. Without knowing anything else, that's the one you'd expect to have the closest correlation, and a very good one, and that's what we get.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,993
    Fishing - when you cut the number of observations three years out, did that affect all categories (e.g. six months before) or just the 3 year category?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,993
    Floater said:

    My 18 year old son just been invited for his vaccine shot.......

    We can only assume it is because he has Asperger's

    He is delighted by this news

    His Mum wants to know when its her turn :smiley:

    Not because the system thinks he's 6cm tall?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,428

    DougSeal said:

    Age related data

    image
    image

    The over-85 hospitalisation data looks - interesting...
    Hopefully COVID is going out of fashion with the over 85s big time...
    COVID itself doesn't appear to be going out of fashion though.

    Definitely a hint of an uptick / levelling off.
    Some kind of outbreak near Potterne in Wilts. No idea where though.
    See the local area case data...


    Any prisons round there?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 12,239

    Floater said:

    My 18 year old son just been invited for his vaccine shot.......

    We can only assume it is because he has Asperger's

    He is delighted by this news

    His Mum wants to know when its her turn :smiley:

    Not because the system thinks he's 6cm tall?
    Came from local surgery - so they should know him .... :wink:
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,727

    Fishing - when you cut the number of observations three years out, did that affect all categories (e.g. six months before) or just the 3 year category?

    Just the three year one. For the rest, n=11.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 64,268

    Incidentally, did we note this from earlier today?

    Two Canada-based researchers on Wednesday urged governments to delay administering the second dose of Pfizer Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, which they said had an efficacy of 92.6% after the first dose, as it was not significantly beneficial in the short term.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSKBN2AI0EC

    Is there perhaps an argument for scrapping the second Pfizer dose altogether ?
Sign In or Register to comment.