Howdy, Stranger!

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

Until the YouGov CON 13% lead is supported by other polling then it should be treated as an outlier

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 9 in General
imageUntil the YouGov CON 13% lead is supported by other polling then it should be treated as an outlier – politicalbetting.com

It is now nearly a week since we got YouGov’s shock 13% CON lead poll which was pretty much out of kilter with other polls before it and we have not had another voting survey to indicate whether this pointed to a new trend or was simply an outlier.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    edited March 9
    First. As ever, it's always nice to have the outliers in your favour.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    Second rate like GP practices
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,117
    I don't think anyone realistically believes Johnson is 13% ahead, but it does support his party being 6 or 7% ahead. I think that alone should have Starmer worried, as it would out Johnson back in Number 10.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,419

    I don't think anyone realistically believes Johnson is 13% ahead, but it does support his party being 6 or 7% ahead. I think that alone should have Starmer worried, as it would out Johnson back in Number 10.

    The locals in May are not so far off. That's surely got to be Starmer's main concern. A 13% loss there would be very bad - I presume there are more than usual too as it has the ones postponed from last year.

    He'll surely face a challenge in the run-up to the conference season were all that to happen.

    It's a shame BF don't have a Starmer exit market.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    Though looking at the share rather than the lead, which used to get hammered here when I first started reading this site, it does look like the Tories have risen in share. 43, 44 and 45 the last 3 shares from 3 different pollsters compared to the 40 or 41 those same pollsters gave the Tories in mid February.

    The outlier looks like Labour as low as 32. That sticks out like a sore thumb, currently unsubstantiated.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,717
    If the Tories beat Labour by over 5% at the Locals then SKS is toast.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 6,472
    There's no guarantee YouGov was an outlier. Covid has been an epoch-defining event. It's quite possible that Boris, the man who is widely perceived to have delivered salvation, will reap extraordinary political rewards.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 3,053
    I want Starmer lose badly as much as I would like to see Harry banished fir his disloyalty
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    edited March 9

    I want Starmer lose badly as much as I would like to see Harry banished fir his disloyalty

    It's a bit weird that you're personally offended by Harry's actions. Who cares, really?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538
    Worth watching to see if it has any great effect.
    https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1369175624234000388
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    Well we managed to go 7 posts in a row talking on topic about politics. Hoping a few more on topic to come.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    I see the government is banning the import of Foie Gras. When will this wokery end?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,661

    Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.

    How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.

    Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.

    That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123
    Until Boris' 80 seat majority is tested in 2024, it should be treated as an outlier general election....
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,945
    Johnson is one of those Lucky Generals Napoleon used to go on about. Livingstone twice, Corbyn...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?
  • isamisam Posts: 35,512
    Probably is an outlier, but it could be just a sign things are getting back to normal - before the govt were locking us indoors whilst thousands were dying of Covid they were often more than 12% clear
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116

    I see the government is banning the import of Foie Gras. When will this wokery end?

    It's gastronomic correctness gone mad.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    It's OK as it long it doesn't appear to be a pitch for the interviewer's job!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,108
    edited March 9

    If the Tories beat Labour by over 5% at the Locals then SKS is toast.

    There's no obvious challenger. He's obviously mediocre-to-poor, but I'm afraid Labour are stuck with him.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    It's OK as it long it doesn't appear to be a pitch for the interviewer's job!
    Well in my position, it is! Just 10 years down the line...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,878
    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,996
    If you squint, all you can see is the Opposition having agreed with the government on every vote of the past 12 months.

    Under such circumstances you would be forgiven for thinking if even the Opposition thinks they are doing a good job then why shouldn't I?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,542

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,419

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    It's OK as it long it doesn't appear to be a pitch for the interviewer's job!
    Well in my position, it is! Just 10 years down the line...
    If you tone it down you risk looking like you weren't very good. In an interview though try to avoid making too many 'in my experience' statements.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,878

    Though looking at the share rather than the lead, which used to get hammered here when I first started reading this site, it does look like the Tories have risen in share. 43, 44 and 45 the last 3 shares from 3 different pollsters compared to the 40 or 41 those same pollsters gave the Tories in mid February.

    The outlier looks like Labour as low as 32. That sticks out like a sore thumb, currently unsubstantiated.

    The EMA shows the Tories on 41.6%, Labour on 36.2% - a lead of 5.4%.

    It gives the Tories an overall majority of 26.



  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,661
    edited March 9
    DougSeal said:

    Johnson is one of those Lucky Generals Napoleon used to go on about. Livingstone twice, Corbyn...

    Also, almost anyone looks good replacing Theresa May.

    Also, Civil War has broken out between Sturgeon & Salmond.

    Also, he is up against Sir Wooden Starmer. And Sir Lifeless Davey.

    We're damn lucky the lead is only 13 %, come to think of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,095

    If the Tories beat Labour by over 5% at the Locals then SKS is toast.

    He isn't as Labour will still gain seats in the county elections given they were 11% behind in the counties in 2017
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,996
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.

    Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.

    Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,542

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    It's OK as it long it doesn't appear to be a pitch for the interviewer's job!
    Well in my position, it is! Just 10 years down the line...
    You should always be pitching for your interviewer's job. When they get promoted, they'll need someone they can trust to fill their own role. The only times this doesn't work are when the interviewer is insecure, overpromoted already (and knows it) or approaching retirement. The first two are red flags, and in the third case it won't matter too much.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 9
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    There is something in this. There's three issues - a basically unreformed culture of the royal household after the Diana disaster, strikingly so compared to most European monarchies ; a habitually bullying press targeting a particular person, for particularly dubious reasons ; and someone wanting to join an institution who wasn't particularly curious about its own side of the story or perspective, either ; partly because of transatlantic differences that also precede modern race debates. All three are responsible, I would say.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,449
    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    Again without commenting on H&M, it is important to understand that the Royal Family is an institution that is very aware of its own history and place in society. It is why, if it is true and we don't know if it is, Charles might have declined to take a call from Harry who he might have deemed to be seeking to subvert the Royal Family's place.

    Put simply, the Queen is very much aware that she is the Queen and the line of succession also. Hence it would be possible to see Charles as fiercely protective of that when dealing with potential disruptions, possibly even if that is your son.

    Without understanding the status and perception of that status of the Royal Family it is very difficult to understand the behaviour we are seeing now.
    There is also the assumption that M&H are telling the truth, or largely telling it. That's not a bet on which I would put large amounts of money.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,725

    If the Tories beat Labour by over 5% at the Locals then SKS is toast.

    I think not. The polling is not good, and might be confirmed with a bad locals result, but this is by any standards an unusual period with the country emerging early from the pandemic thanks to a vaccine rollout for which the government is reaping great credit, and plus the added frisson of the EU's shambles in that area, which adds to the satisfaction for the Leave base on which the Tory Party rests these days, and which just for a brief moment or so - being now and for at least another few months - creates the illusion of Brexit not being a monumentally stupid idea. So Starmer will be given more time, imo, come what may. He was elected very convincingly and there's no obvious alternative or appetite to change except for on the left fringe, which has been marmalized. If things still look bleak by summer 2022, maybe.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,661
    HYUFD said:

    If the Tories beat Labour by over 5% at the Locals then SKS is toast.

    He isn't as Labour will still gain seats in the county elections given they were 11% behind in the counties in 2017
    My guess is -- knowing Labour -- it will be the worst possible outcome.

    SKS will do just well enough to stay put, but not well enough to convince neutrals that he can win in 2024.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    Are we back on royalty?

    I don't think there's much evidence to back up anything specific they said.

    And all the furious commentators are furiously saying what they would be saying anyway, just with a different projected backdrop.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,542

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,643
    𝘽𝙀𝙏𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙋𝙊𝙎𝙏


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,708
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    You shouldn't have bothered.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 48,044
    Written over a year ago:

    Branding experts purr that Harry and Meghan have an interest in preserving the integrity of their brand. But the logic of 21st-century capitalism is against a peaceful settlement. They will need more than Prince Harry’s inheritance, which is estimated at £20m-30m, to keep up with the global super-rich. Ensuring that their brand remains hot and providing their “distribution channels” with “content” will require them to extract more and more value from the monarchy—perhaps including revelations about racism and sexism at the heart of the royal family. The daylight that Walter Bagehot said should not be let in upon the magic of monarchy is as nothing to the glare of 21st-century capitalism.

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/01/16/harry-meghan-and-marx
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 48,044

    I see the government is banning the import of Foie Gras. When will this wokery end?

    More to the point, when did it start?

    2006 when the UK banned Foie Gras production in the UK.

    All that did was export its production to France - which we could do nothing about while we were in the EU.

    So all the Conservatives are doing is follow a Labour policy to its logical conclusion.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,994
    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032
    edited March 9
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032

    I see the government is banning the import of Foie Gras. When will this wokery end?

    More to the point, when did it start?

    2006 when the UK banned Foie Gras production in the UK.

    All that did was export its production to France - which we could do nothing about while we were in the EU.

    So all the Conservatives are doing is follow a Labour policy to its logical conclusion.
    Super Tony Blair strikes again!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538
    Soaring home prices are starting to alarm policymakers
    The last time the U.S. saw such skyrocketing home prices, the ensuing crash brought down the global economy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/soaring-home-prices-alarm-policymakers-474433
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    You shouldn't have bothered.
    Why not ?
    It's an interesting suggestion, and something along the lines is far more likely to happen with a change of monarch than is abolition of the monarchy.

    Or are you happy with a royal household forever anchored in the 1950s ?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,542
    Nigelb said:

    Soaring home prices are starting to alarm policymakers
    The last time the U.S. saw such skyrocketing home prices, the ensuing crash brought down the global economy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/soaring-home-prices-alarm-policymakers-474433

    All of that funny money Biden is printing is going to end up somewhere, why not a property bubble?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,572
    edited March 9
    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,117
    Omnium said:

    I don't think anyone realistically believes Johnson is 13% ahead, but it does support his party being 6 or 7% ahead. I think that alone should have Starmer worried, as it would out Johnson back in Number 10.

    The locals in May are not so far off. That's surely got to be Starmer's main concern. A 13% loss there would be very bad - I presume there are more than usual too as it has the ones postponed from last year.

    He'll surely face a challenge in the run-up to the conference season were all that to happen.

    It's a shame BF don't have a Starmer exit market.
    I think this is a good point.

    The 2016 results were equivalent to a national vote lead of 1% in favour of the Conservatives.

    The 2017 results were equivalent to a national vote lead of 11% in favour of the Conservatives.

    So the "par score" should be in the region of 6% ahead nationally. The current trials and tribulations could make the difference between net gains and net losses.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Soaring home prices are starting to alarm policymakers
    The last time the U.S. saw such skyrocketing home prices, the ensuing crash brought down the global economy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/soaring-home-prices-alarm-policymakers-474433

    All of that funny money Biden is printing is going to end up somewhere, why not a property bubble?
    Why not, indeed.
    The stimulus package does represent something of a gamble. The next year or so will be very interesting.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,306
    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 4,945

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I always explain to American relatives that the Queen is like their flag. Everytime those of us over 25 posted a letter, spent currency or renewed a passport there is a reference to the Queen, far more so than the Union Flag. It has been ubiquitous as flags on front lawns and government buildings over there. That might change with the passing of the Queen but at the moment losing the Monarch seems to me as if it would be as much of a shock to us to lose it as banning the Stars and Stripes would be in the States. They don't understand it but neither do I really understand the quasi-religious reverence they give to their flag.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    Playing "naked pool" sounds like a good night rather than a mistake to me.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,712
    Unionism fast approaching the ‘we may need to bomb Scottish airstrips and who will think of the alien invasions’ stage. Again.

    https://twitter.com/peterja87603295/status/1369215827115966464?s=21
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,542

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...
    Ah, I see. My experience interviewing grads for professional services isn't as directly relevant as I thought then, so I can't be sure. I would guess it will be pretty obvious from the rest of your application that you won't be there long term anyway, so there isn't much point downplaying your other experience. Might depend on whether your extra experience will cost them salary wise - if you'll be asking for more than the standard rate, it may not be worth it for them, whereas if you won't, they effectively get all that experience for "free".

    Anyway, they'll probably be more worried that you'll end up marrying a member of a foreign royal family, and quit after a few years, and the firm will completely lose their way after that and wind down a year later.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I think it depends on how the public view the scandal. There was a palpable sense of threat to the monarchy in the first week of September 1997 (admittedly I was only 10 at the time, so others might remember it differently).

    This doesn't feel anything like 1997. Perhaps the public perception of Meghan is unfair, but ultimately that's what matters in all of this. A politician would have to be absolutely stupid to try to use this episode to bring down the monarchy.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,426

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    Playing "naked pool" sounds like a good night rather than a mistake to me.
    Depends who you play it with, surely?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,095
    edited March 9
    tlg86 said:

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I think it depends on how the public view the scandal. There was a palpable sense of threat to the monarchy in the first week of September 1997 (admittedly I was only 10 at the time, so others might remember it differently).

    This doesn't feel anything like 1997. Perhaps the public perception of Meghan is unfair, but ultimately that's what matters in all of this. A politician would have to be absolutely stupid to try to use this episode to bring down the monarchy.
    Exactly. Americans may like Meghan (apart from some Trump voters), the British clearly don't.

    https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1369014999625121797?s=20
    Diana was liked by both
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 20,725
    edited March 9

    Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.

    How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.

    Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.

    That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.

    It feels right to me, I'm afraid. And tbh no shock at all. Landslide quite recently. The one key pledge - Leave - implemented. Pandemic beaten before anyone else due to vaccine triumph. EU screwing up big time and making Brexit look wise. "Boris" colonizing everyone's head space and altering the template of what a PM should look and feel like. And nobody with the remotest interest in hearing anything from Labour, who are thus reduced to trying not to irritate. The only surprise is that the Con lead is not bigger.

    I hope to see the polls tighten once things have normalized in a few months.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,095
    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.

    Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,188

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
    If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 9
    tlg86 said:

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I think it depends on how the public view the scandal. There was a palpable sense of threat to the monarchy in the first week of September 1997 (admittedly I was only 10 at the time, so others might remember it differently).

    This doesn't feel anything like 1997. Perhaps the public perception of Meghan is unfair, but ultimately that's what matters in all of this. A politician would have to be absolutely stupid to try to use this episode to bring down the monarchy.
    I agree, but something is more broadly concerning than in 1997. I can see this very quickly being signed up as part of the culture war and ultra-polarisation of opinion that now afflicts both Britain and America, and in some places online that seems to have already happened. This process is as much about a threat to cohesion, turbocharged by social media, as simply about the monarchy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703
    FPT - Norman Baker seems to be trading off the fact he was a member of the privy council (size: over 600 members, and includes Jeremy Corbyn) and a junior minister for barely one year in the coalition government.

    He has no special knowledge. And he was a propagator of conspiracy theories about David Kelly and UFOs.

    He's a staunch republican. His book is just an airing of his prejudices about monarchy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    kinabalu said:

    Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.

    How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.

    Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.

    That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.

    It feels right to me, I'm afraid. And tbh no shock at all. Landslide quite recently. The one key pledge - Leave - implemented. Pandemic beaten before anyone else due to vaccine triumph. EU screwing up big time and making Brexit look wise. "Boris" colonizing everyone's head space and altering the template of what a PM should look and feel like. And nobody with the remotest interest in hearing anything from Labour, who are thus reduced to trying not to irritate. The only surprise is that the Con lead is not bigger.

    I hope to see the polls tighten once things have normalized in a few months.
    What if what you've just described is the 'new normal'?

    Afterall it was the prepandemic normal too.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 1,377

    Unionism fast approaching the ‘we may need to bomb Scottish airstrips and who will think of the alien invasions’ stage. Again.

    https://twitter.com/peterja87603295/status/1369215827115966464?s=21

    Just from the headline - you'd think they'd have learned something from Obama's interventions on Brexit!
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,712

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    I’m sure the royalists who turned themselves inside out defending naked pool and dressing up as Hitler will have a Damascene conversion on the value and/or harmlessness of such activities.

    Just for PB pedantry points, I believe Prince Hal dressed up as a non specific Nazi rather than AH, a sort of Afrika Korps vibe afaicr.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 15,032

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
    If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
    I guess the consensus is not to under-sell myself.

    Cheers everyone. On I go...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I explored the subject on here a year ago:
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/23/is-the-monarchy-in-trouble/

    My key point was that you need political skill to be apolitical, and it's impermeable nature shouldn't be taken for granted.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 1,188

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    Playing "naked pool" sounds like a good night rather than a mistake to me.
    Is that targeted at Harry or Piers?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,094
    edited March 9
    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.

    Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).

    It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,452
    Wales crosses the million mark
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123
    HYUFD said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.

    Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
    You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.

    Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703

    I don't especially want to extend the discussion about Meghan, but there's a perceptive comment in th eNew Statesman blog about how it's being handled:

    "Most papers this morning declare that the Palace is "in crisis" as it decides how to respond. But most of the coverage in the UK is revealing of a fundamental reluctance to have a conversation about the future of the monarchy or to analyse the dynamics discussed by Prince Harry (nor, indeed, to reckon with the place of the British press in this story). That's the key to the monarchy's survival: no matter what happens or what revelations are levelled against it as an institution, a discussion about whether it should persist is always viewed as a bit fanatical, a bit weird, a bit gauche. That's why even serious allegations like these are unlikely to shake the monarchy, and why the Royal Family is more secure than Harry and his family think."

    I explored the subject on here a year ago:
    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/02/23/is-the-monarchy-in-trouble/

    My key point was that you need political skill to be apolitical, and it's impermeable nature shouldn't be taken for granted.
    Not that I want to quote myself further, but...

    Queen Elizabeth: "Key to (her success) has been her supreme self-discipline and self-awareness of public opinion."

    Duchess of Sussex: ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    Is there something about being very unWoke that subsequently turns you insufferably Woke?

    Harry would have had some awesome house parties with Justin Trudeau in his early 20s, I'm sure.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    I’m sure the royalists who turned themselves inside out defending naked pool and dressing up as Hitler will have a Damascene conversion on the value and/or harmlessness of such activities.

    Just for PB pedantry points, I believe Prince Hal dressed up as a non specific Nazi rather than AH, a sort of Afrika Korps vibe afaicr.
    I think Harry borrowed the costume from Ed Balls.....
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,117


    Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.

    How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.

    Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.

    That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.

    This is a big pet peeve of mine.

    The expected outcomes do not fit a Gaussian distribution, because sampling error is only one type of bias.

    There are other reasons we might expect outliers, such as the way that the pollsters filter and weight their respondents, and how that responds to particularly small sample sizes in some categories from week to week.

    It also depends on the accuracy of the person giving the statement.

    As to their predictive power (i.e. if we are distributing them against the actual result), there are additional factors.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,878
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Soaring home prices are starting to alarm policymakers
    The last time the U.S. saw such skyrocketing home prices, the ensuing crash brought down the global economy.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/soaring-home-prices-alarm-policymakers-474433

    All of that funny money Biden is printing is going to end up somewhere, why not a property bubble?
    Why not, indeed.
    The stimulus package does represent something of a gamble. The next year or so will be very interesting.
    By directing it at consumers the money is more likely to end up in consumption rather than asset inflation.

    The previous approach of directing the money through the banks using QE results in investors piling in to borrow at very low interest rates and investing in capital assets.

    Biden's approach should boost consumer demand in the economy which is what is needed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,452
    Wales

    1st dose 2nd dose
    9,095 8,291
    1st dose accum 2nd dose accum
    1,007,391 192,030

    Expected return of 315k jabs UK wide
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
    If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
    Bollocks to that, is he Leave or Remain?*

    (*joking)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123
    algarkirk said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    The issue of next labour leader is fascinating and depressing. If a glance at Oddschecker is right, it is a proper Grand National field, being huge, with no-one shorter than about 6 or 7/1 (Rayner), and by the time you get to the 5th and 8th favourite they are people no-one at all in the normal (non PB) world has heard of.

    Non MP stars like David Miliband are out of sight, while non MP Burnham is 2nd favourite. (Has anyone any idea how badly Burnham woould go down among Labours new middle class outside the north? Rayner would be the same).

    It stands out a mile that Labour lack a top five or so heavy hitter stellar contest either now or the foreseeable future. The second favourite isn't even a MP. The mind boggles.

    Surely, Labour has to have a female leader next? If not, the next time they elect a leader will be half a century behind the Conservatives having done so.

    I think both Balls and Burnham would be markedly more appealing than Starmer. But neither are MPs. And neither has a front bottom.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,712
    So SLab will be restricting itself to the shrinking and increasingly muddy waterhole of Unionist voters. Can’t say I’m surprised.

    https://twitter.com/shirkerism/status/1369249829289930755?s=21
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 48,044
    No retractions of "clarifications" - just emotional blackmail:

    https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1369255512005611522?s=20
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
    My wife started as a paralegal, and then got a training contract. If you're good you'll be noticed. Get your foot in the door, would be my advice - even if the salary ain't much cop.

    And look at mid-size lawfirms too. Yes, they don't pay as well, but they don't work you like dogs either and they're more willing to think outside the box on recruitment too.

    VM me if you want more.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 353

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    You're applying for grad schemes following a career change, if I remember correctly? In which case that shouldn't be too much of an issue since most grad schemes see high turnover after the programme ends.

    If it's a standard entry level role, I would go with whatever maximises the chances of getting an interview, where you can better explain your motivations. Which probably means go harder rather than softer on your experience.
    I'm not actually applying for grad schemes, because in law "grad schemes" i.e. training contracts tend to begin 2+ years in the future. I'm therefore applying for Paralegal roles, etc, to fulfil the immediate need of having an income when university ends in the summer as well as building up legal experience on top of my existing experience.

    The problem is that firms know that ultimately I don't want to be Paralegal long-term and that I will probably f*ck off at the earliest opportunity, which is true in the sense I do want to progress although ideally at the same firm. However I worry that if I present myself at a "too high" of a level firms wont want to deal with the risk of training me up.

    Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'm answering questions such as "When have you held a position of responsibility, for example membership of a sports club" with "I have ran multi-million pound projects"...

    I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. :)
    If I was reading your CV, I would be interested in the transferrable soft skills - experienced in dealing with clients, used to working in a team to meet deadlines, confident, organised, etc. I'd also want to understand why you decided to change career, but cover that in an interview.
    I guess the consensus is not to under-sell myself.

    Cheers everyone. On I go...
    I did my undergraduate degree in my 30s having worked as the director of a company and other management jobs - I found that this experience put off various employers - scared them a bit I suppose - assuming I would not be willing to mould to their way of thinking, not accepting my role at the bottom of the ladder, being an intimidating person to younger but more senior people, who knows!

    The times I got to selection centre stage etc it was because they could see how my past experience fitted their needs - don't give up, you will have a good knowledge of purchasing, negotiating, working with others, being what the Danes call 'service minded' - so get those in early on the CV and leave job titles, seniority etc out of it - good luck! I eventually ended up writing applications in investment banking until I went back to do postgraduate study and move into academia - two career changes!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,708
    edited March 9
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Essexit said:

    Coming to this late, but one thing above all puzzles me about last night's interview. Meghan and Harry separately spoke very highly of the Queen, but also spoke of an 'institution' or 'firm' that denided Archie a title, denied Meghan access to mental health services, etc. Harry said his father and brother are 'trapped' in this system. Given that the Queen is chair and CEO of this 'firm', that would imply a much less positive view of her, unless they think a shadowy cabal of advisers make the real decisions. It's a shame Oprah was never going to ask those questions.

    I suspect the long-serving flunkeys in the institution have a lot of power. They determine the culture and the rules. The royals are trained to fit into that institution.

    I also suspect that Meghan questioned that power. She was backed up by Harry and the flunkeys threw a hissy fit. Some even had PTSD after their authority was challenged. This has now emerged as Meghan bullying the staff.
    FPT just to finish my point.

    I don't think merely slimming down the number of royals is enough. We need a Royal Charter that defines the role of the monarchy and then all the current staff should be fired. A new support organisation would need to be recruited with staff in tune with the Charter. You have to change the culture, not just the front players.

    Harry referred to his father and his brother as being "trapped". I think this is what he was referring to. They might welcome being freed from the old culture. Make a fresh start for the 21st century.
    You shouldn't have bothered.
    Why not ?
    It's an interesting suggestion, and something along the lines is far more likely to happen with a change of monarch than is abolition of the monarchy.

    Or are you happy with a royal household forever anchored in the 1950s ?
    Because his point highlighted nothing except his asinine, biased, and frankly quite distasteful assumption that any allegations of bullying from Royal staff against Markle were 'PTSD from having their authority questioned'. The solution to this is apparently to 'sack them all' and get new ones.

    As I said in the previous thread, I must have missed him defending Priti Patel from Phillip Rutnam and his case of 'PTSD from having his authority questioned' - prima facie a far more fitting set of circumstances for the Barnesian treatment. Patel obviously the wrong sort of BAME woman. Ought to talk more about her lived experience, not be a Tory, and try and be a bit more glamorous and American.

    Regarding change in the Royal family, it is happening all the time - the institution evolves constantly, sometimes slowly, sometimes fast. The idea that the household should be dismantled and reassembled by the woke police simply because we think someone in it may have once said something off-colour to Meghan Markle is risible. Who the Royal family employs is a matter for them.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,832

    Second rate like GP practices

    Like some, tbf. I sympathise with your really bad experience.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,095

    HYUFD said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.

    Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
    You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.

    Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
    In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.

    Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.

    So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,572

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    I'm sure Harry had a pretty decent noughties, a friend of mind allegedly saw him powdering his nose at Nicholas Van Cutsam's wedding. We all no doubt did some wild regrettable things, but even the sort of japes he got involved in like dressing as a Nazi, calling his army mate a 'paki' on home video, naked pool parties probably seem a bit unrelatable to most people. Just toffs being toffs.

    I don't think I'd find much in common with that version of Harry or his latest 'beta male' incarnation.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,708

    Unionism fast approaching the ‘we may need to bomb Scottish airstrips and who will think of the alien invasions’ stage. Again.

    https://twitter.com/peterja87603295/status/1369215827115966464?s=21

    I don't know - I think it's one of the first positive things I've heard about Sindy for a while.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,661


    Claims of outliers on pb.com are very much more common than actual outliers, which should be very rare.

    How many polls are there in a non-election year? Maybe one a week, or so.

    Then assuming a Gaussian distribution with a σ of say 2 %, we can expect to be out by 3 σ or +/- 6 % about once every 7 years.

    That is how unlikely an outlier of this magnitude is.

    This is a big pet peeve of mine.

    The expected outcomes do not fit a Gaussian distribution, because sampling error is only one type of bias.

    There are other reasons we might expect outliers, such as the way that the pollsters filter and weight their respondents, and how that responds to particularly small sample sizes in some categories from week to week.

    It also depends on the accuracy of the person giving the statement.

    As to their predictive power (i.e. if we are distributing them against the actual result), there are additional factors.

    Of course, the noise properties are not Gaussian, but the example suffices to show that this kind of outlier is expected to be very, very infrequent indeed -- once every few years given the current rate of polling.

    A proper calculation would be a rather lengthier affair.

    My conclusion is that the underlying trend towards the Tories is very much more likely to be real than an outlier, even if YouGov may have over-estimated the actual lead.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,306
    edited March 9

    Something of a zinger from Thomas Markle's upcoming interview on ITV:

    'We all make mistakes ... but I never played naked pool or dressed up as Hitler...'

    Playing "naked pool" sounds like a good night rather than a mistake to me.
    Thomas has obviously led a sheltered life. On the other hand, it exposes the selective logic of cancel culture - dressing up as a Nazi can be completely glossed over ... as long as you're on the 'correct' side, of course. You can then move seamlessly on to monetizing unsubstantiated allegations that unspecified person X said unspecified words Y on unspecified date Z, winning the sympathy of a nation (the US) and laughing all the way to the bank...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,123
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brom said:

    If Labour do poorly in the locals surely a leadership challenge could be expected from the left of the party. After all Corbyn faced one after less than a year of his leadership reign. Could the left muster 20% of Lab MPs? possibly just about. Could they win the membership vote? - Harder to say, but with Starmer having been a big disapointment so far who is to say the centrist membership along with those on the left who hoped they backed a future election winner in 2020 would support him again?


    In this scenario, those MPs critical of Starmer with a bit of punch, those who hate the Tories and have a fair bit of popular support amongst Momentum could oust him in the right conditions.

    Clive Lewis at 33/1 and John Mcdonnell at 100/1 seem like petty good outside shouts of becoming next leader IMO and repesent far better odds than the likes of Khan and Burnham with no obvious route into parliament.

    It may do but I doubt it would get any further than Tony Benn's challenge to Kinnock in the 1980s.

    Regardless Starmer will almost certainly gain seats in the county elections anyway given how poorly Corbyn did in them in 2017
    You have 2016 and 2017 seats coming up in May. In 2016 the vote was Labour 31%, Cons 30%, LibDems 15%. Labour look to get hammered on 2016 seats if YouGov is close.

    Even on 2017, that YouGov gives a 1% swing Lab to Cons. Anyone expecting the locals to come to Starmer's aid needs to do some digging into the numbers.
    In 2016 Labour got just 31%, in 2017 Labour got just 27%.

    Every poll, even Yougov has Labour polling higher than that.

    So Labour will still make gains from the LDs even on the 2016 numbers as well as the 2017 numbers, even if Labour only make gains from the Tories on the 2017 numbers in the county elections
    Gaining seats from LibDems won't save him if he is losing councils to the Tories....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,476

    Endillion said:

    Job application question: do people think it's better to "tone down" experience when applying for "entry level" positions?

    No. Play it up for all you can.

    The problem with recruiting entry level positions is that you are to a large extent gambling that theoretical ability will eventually translate into actual performance. I find any evidence that a candidate has already proven themselves to be incredibly reassuring.
    The worry is being overlooked due to fear of a desire to "move on" too quickly.
    That’s always my concern. But aren’t you a career changer?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277

    I see the government is banning the import of Foie Gras. When will this wokery end?

    More to the point, when did it start?

    2006 when the UK banned Foie Gras production in the UK.

    All that did was export its production to France - which we could do nothing about while we were in the EU.

    So all the Conservatives are doing is follow a Labour policy to its logical conclusion.
    Having checked this a little, the only other country that ban Foie Gras import is India. Though some others do ban production.

    Foie-Grass without force feeding is available.

    Now, will the EU match our level playing field?
Sign In or Register to comment.