politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s approval ratings fall from from a net minus 3% to a n

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction (people getting arsey about it probably being the main part).

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1090627558180352000

Very marginally less than 100%.

No wait it is 100% as formulated..

I think gender identity would affect this, but yes. Every son has a father etc.

In other words, every one of your antecedents, for a hundred generations, managed to procreate.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1090927682429374464

I am surprised the lead is not larger. But it is irrelevant, I cannot see a second referendum entirely because Corbyn will never agree to one. ( neither will very many labour mps)

As always, the Leave figure is a composite of widely diverse views, from No-Dealers to Brinos to Unicornistas. So when we leave we will be implementing a policy that pleases few, disappoints a large majority and is almost certainly going to be bad for the country.

Has there been a bigger Governmental f*ck up since Lord North lost the Colonies?

498 mps voted in the HOC for A50 and default no deal if you are looking for blame

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1090927682429374464

I am surprised the lead is not larger. But it is irrelevant, I cannot see a second referendum entirely because Corbyn will never agree to one. ( neither will very many labour mps)

As always, the Leave figure is a composite of widely diverse views, from No-Dealers to Brinos to Unicornistas. So when we leave we will be implanting a policy that pleases few, disappoints a large majority and is almost certainly going to be bad for the country.

Has there been a bigger Governmental f*ck up since Lord North lost the Colonies?

Much of the Brexit analyis assumes that once we get to April, it all ends and we are back to politics as normal. Arguably this pb thread is predicated on that assumption. But even ignoring transition negotiations, if project fear is right, there will be great economic hardship that will condemn the government. Contrariwise, if Jacob Rees-Mogg is right that Britain will be trillions of pounds better off out, then there will be a Conservative landslide in 2022.

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

El_Capitano said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

eek said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, I agree with Mike.

Corbynistas will no doubt (rightly) point out that Corbyn's ratings were also bad - worse, indeed - before the 2017 campaign and improved hugely in the month leading up to the vote but in doing so, they ignore two things. Firstly, the Tory campaign cannot be guaranteed to be so singularly dreadful again (though if may is still leader, it might be); and secondly, voters who gave Corbyn a second chance in 2017 - remember, Labour was level-pegging with the Tories under Corbyn, while Cameron was PM - might be disinclined to give him a third one, no matter how well he campaigns.

The Tory campaign won't be as bad as the last time. It was destroyed by the Social Care "Death" tax which won't be part of any future manifesto.

That is the popular view, that the death tax killed the Tories, but I do not believe it. Lynton Crosby's dreadful campaign lost it, even though afterwards he spun it as being down to Nick & Fiona's death tax, a proposal quickly dropped and that I do not recall Labour focussing on, though with targeted advertising these days, it is hard to be sure what messages parties are pumping out on social media. Crosby imposed a presidential campaign with Theresa May front and centre and the rest of the Cabinet locked in a cupboard, completely overlooking that Theresa May is rotten on the stump.

I agree. The slight problem is that letting the Cabinet out of the cupboard isn't exactly a vote-winning prospect either. There may in theory be people whose vote could be swung by Gavin Williamson, Chris Grayling and Matt Hancock, but until suffrage is extended to the residents of mental hospitals, it will remain just a theoretical possibility.

By contrast, I can see many votes being swung by regular appearances of the aforementioned.

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

A good point. And I'm glad you got in touch because I would appreciate your ((and others) feedback on a theory I am working up. As below:

If TM cannot get her deal through, she will not allow no deal and neither will she cave in and embrace the softer brexit that Labour are calling for.

What she WILL do is seek to call a general election, along with the article 50 extension necessary to hold it.

Just the threat of her doing this could upset the ERG and the DUP so much that they fall in line, meaning that she does get the deal through.

Otherwise, GENERAL ELECTION in March.

What do you think?

An extension and referendum is easier to get through, not least because she wouldn't have the insuperable problem of putting together a manifesto that her party would support. She would present a referendum to Parliament on the basis of deal vs no deal, which presumably would be amended either to remain vs deal or to a two stage referendum involving all three.

After the failure of Cooper-Boles I'm not certain an amendment to alter the referendum to remain/deal would get through. I mean it might but it could be WTO vs EEA.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1090927682429374464

I am surprised the lead is not larger. But it is irrelevant, I cannot see a second referendum entirely because Corbyn will never agree to one. ( neither will very many labour mps)

As always, the Leave figure is a composite of widely diverse views, from No-Dealers to Brinos to Unicornistas. So when we leave we will be implanting a policy that pleases few, disappoints a large majority and is almost certainly going to be bad for the country.

Has there been a bigger Governmental f*ck up since Lord North lost the Colonies?

Much of the Brexit analyis assumes that once we get to April, it all ends and we are back to politics as normal. Arguably this pb thread is predicated on that assumption. But even ignoring transition negotiations, if project fear is right, there will be great economic hardship that will condemn the government. Contrariwise, if Jacob Rees-Mogg is right that Britain will be trillions of pounds better off out, then there will be a Conservative landslide in 2022.

Believe me, I would be delighted to see such a landslide in 2022 as a consequence of JRM being right and most others wrong. In fact I would happily lick clean the shoes of every Leaver on this site that forecast such an eventuality.

Never in my life have I ever wanted to be so wrong about something as I am about Brexit.

kinabalu said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

A good point. And I'm glad you got in touch because I would appreciate your ((and others) feedback on a theory I am working up. As below:

If TM cannot get her deal through, she will not allow no deal and neither will she cave in and embrace the softer brexit that Labour are calling for.

What she WILL do is seek to call a general election, along with the article 50 extension necessary to hold it.

Just the threat of her doing this could upset the ERG and the DUP so much that they fall in line, meaning that she does get the deal through.

Otherwise, GENERAL ELECTION in March.

What do you think?

My best guess is a deal will be done.

I do not believe TM will no deal nor do I see a GE as that does not resolve anything

TM has the power to ask for an A50 extension of three months, which I expect anyway, due to the volume of parliamentary business still to be addressed

Of course she could revoke subject to parliamentary approval but I believe that is highly unlikely

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

FPT

matt said:

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Barclays is moving €190bn (£166bn) of assets to Dublin because it "cannot wait any longer" to implement its Brexit contingency plan. The High Court, which has approved the move, says the move involves 5,000 clients. However, few jobs in London are expected to be affected.

The business amounts to around 15% of the bank's £1.2 trillion in total assets and was previously conducted in the UK through branches across the EU.
The plans will be in place by 29 March. The bank's Dublin operation is expected to double in size to 300 people as a result of the business being channelled though the Irish capital.

So hang on, few jobs lost in London, but 300 extra in Dublin. Are these jobs being lost in "branches across the [non-UK] EU then?

Perhaps more significant is the massive drop in investment in the motor industry ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47055188

How much of that is related to their entire business model seems to be in turmoil and new vehicles aren’t being launched because of a lack of regulatory certainty?

A very good question - perhaps our resident motor industry experts would like to weigh in ?

My own uninformed guess is that quite a lot of the drop in investment is 'business model in turmoil' related.

But no one seems to be planning battery plants here, as opposed to Europe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-batteries-europe-factbox/factbox-plans-for-electric-vehicle-battery-production-in-europe-idUSKCN1NE0K5

And, of course, Dyson, who aspires to be a player, has refocussed on Asia.

JLR announced a battery factory this month in Warwickshire, Nissan UK already has a facility. UK activities are driven through a research centre in Coventry,

What do JLR mean by 'battery assembly centre' ?

They will import the lithium cells and assemble them in the UK for use in electric vehicles and export. We aren't a major manufacturer of lithium cells, no European nation is.

No, but some large plants are in planning - I was questioning whether any are in the UK.

I'm not sure, Europe isn't really a good place for cell manufacturing though, none of the countries have major lithium deposits. I think battery assembly is probably the best we can hope for and in that respect we're about evens with Germany and ahead of the rest of the continent.

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sadly for Corbyn, the poll is a clear verdict on the most incompetent labour leader in my lifetime of 75 years

Playing a blinder on Brexit, though, so far.

You may be being ironic, but if you are not I would say he certainly has not. The country is indeed unfortunate that it has a PM with limited EQ and a LOTO that is of limited IQ. Both are only obsessed by what is in the interest of their parties (or party within a party) rather than what is in the interest of the country. They are both a disgrace to the offices they hold.

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sadly for Corbyn, the poll is a clear verdict on the most incompetent labour leader in my lifetime of 75 years

Playing a blinder on Brexit, though, so far.

You think so

kinabalu said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Perhaps Jew hating is not universally regarded as an unalloyed good.

Do you really think he hates Jews?

No he doesn't. He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists. It is however, rife among Communists and Trotskyists, and he views the latter as allies.

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

I dislike Farage totally but he represents a political opinion that attracks some and instills despair in others.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

I dislike Farage totally but he represents a political opinion that attracks some and instills despair in others.

Let's try to objective about this.

Our political and economic system creates a lot of fertile ground for the kind of populism somebody like Farage can easily exploit. We have to tackle the cause, not the symptom.

Nigel_Foremain said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

AlastairMeeks said:

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

A good point. And I'm glad you got in touch because I would appreciate your ((and others) feedback on a theory I am working up. As below:

If TM cannot get her deal through, she will not allow no deal and neither will she cave in and embrace the softer brexit that Labour are calling for.

What she WILL do is seek to call a general election, along with the article 50 extension necessary to hold it.

Just the threat of her doing this could upset the ERG and the DUP so much that they fall in line, meaning that she does get the deal through.

Otherwise, GENERAL ELECTION in March.

What do you think?

An extension and referendum is easier to get through, not least because she wouldn't have the insuperable problem of putting together a manifesto that her party would support. She would present a referendum to Parliament on the basis of deal vs no deal, which presumably would be amended either to remain vs deal or to a two stage referendum involving all three.

After the failure of Cooper-Boles I'm not certain an amendment to alter the referendum to remain/deal would get through. I mean it might but it could be WTO vs EEA.

I don't see how you can consult the people without giving them the option to vote for the outcome that has consistently been by far the single most popular policy resolution.

Or least unpopular. And there is the rub with referenda in general. He/she that asks the question often influences the outcome. Had Cameron not been held to ransom by the headbangers he might well have asked a much more meaningful three way question, and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Hindsight would be a wonderful gift but it is like unicorns

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

I dislike Farage totally but he represents a political opinion that attracks some and instills despair in others.

Let's try to objective about this.

Our political and economic system creates a lot of fertile ground for the kind of populism somebody like Farage can easily exploit. We have to tackle the cause, not the symptom.

I agree but unfortunately the solutions are complex and very long term

AlastairMeeks said:

She would present a referendum to Parliament on the basis of deal vs no deal, which presumably would be amended either to remain vs deal or to a two stage referendum involving all three.

That would be fascinating, and horrific.

What would Labour say in the referendum? "This deal is shit, please vote for it"

Meanwhile, the Tories who said "Easiest deal in history" last time would be all over the airwaves (with equal time and authority, for "balance", as the real experts), this time claiming "No deal is better than this deal, which is bad"

I would expect to see Tezza's quote on the side of a bus...

AlastairMeeks said:

An extension and referendum is easier to get through, not least because she wouldn't have the insuperable problem of putting together a manifesto that her party would support. She would present a referendum to Parliament on the basis of deal vs no deal, which presumably would be amended either to remain vs deal or to a two stage referendum involving all three.

OK, thanks. Yes, I guess that is possible too. I bet she would prefer the GE, though, if she thinks that she can get away with it. With one bound she could be not only free but redeemed.

She will have to do something. Can't see No Deal (I just can't) and a cross party compromise with the personalities involved looks a very long shot.

OblitusSumMe said:

Pro_Rata said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

matt said:

Looking at the table, how do people collect enough information to approve or disapprove of Cable? What has he done to merit more than a resigned, “meh”. It’s akin to having a strong opinion on pelargoniums.

Cable is 76 this May. He's the first leader of any of the three main parties to serve into his fourth quarter-century since Churchill - and Churchill fought two elections after that milestone, gaining seats at both and winning one. That's surely a happy omen for Vince?

On 15th August 1867, Benjamin Disraeli's Second Reform Act enfranchised many urban working men and added 938,000 to an electorate of 1,057,000 in England and Wales.

This is nearer to Vince Cable's birthdate than today is.

"Don't you know? There'll be a time when everyone you ever met has died" - The Flaming Lips

I had some old, by then infirm, aunts in their 90s when I was primary school age. They would have been born early to mid 1880s. IIRC, and I think this was relayed to me later as well, one of them worked in the chemical factory with and spoke very highly of Chaim Weizman on a personal level.

I wonder what will pass of us into the 22nd century.

Only that which is sufficiently high above sea level to escape the rising seas!

My elder brother shocked me by pointing out that my birth date was closer to WWII than the present day. I've still some way to go before I reach WWI on that metric.

One of the colleagues I was working with couldn't remember 9/11 - it had happened when they were a toddler. That made me feel old.

Pre-me was currently born during the Battle of the Somme.

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

Benpointer said:

Jezza's focus is undiminished I see, according to the Guardian's Politics Live agenda for today:

"10.15am: Jeremy Corbyn holds a meeting in Ilkeston focusing on bus services."

Lots of people use buses and its a service with difficulties:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47045872

Bus usage gets very little media attention (or government money) compared to say London based rail lines.

Buses are also used heavily by poorer pensioners, which I expect is currently a key swing voting segment.

A key part of the "free stuff" constituency, given that they don't pay for said buses.

kinabalu said:

AlastairMeeks said:

An extension and referendum is easier to get through, not least because she wouldn't have the insuperable problem of putting together a manifesto that her party would support. She would present a referendum to Parliament on the basis of deal vs no deal, which presumably would be amended either to remain vs deal or to a two stage referendum involving all three.

OK, thanks. Yes, I guess that is possible too. I bet she would prefer the GE, though, if she thinks that she can get away with it. With one bound she could be not only free but redeemed.

She will have to do something. Can't see No Deal (I just can't) and a cross party compromise with the personalities involved looks a very long shot.

Why would TM be free with one bound.

And what would be in her manifesto. Indeed what would be in labour's manifesto

A GE just now is the worst of all options as it would not solve anything

A fine distillation of 'Ireland should leave the EU' twattery.

'History makes it unlikely, but there are good reasons for Ireland quitting the EU'

https://tinyurl.com/yb5u4uxh

Apart from the contention itself he suggests 'Ireland leaving the EU gets very little consideration as an option'. He's evidently missed the thousands of eejits (some of them elected politicians) proposing it every day of the week.

TheJezziah said:

david_herdson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

david_herdson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

YBarddCwsc said:

I think it would be stupid to underestimate Corby.

Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Smith, the Blairites, May and the Tory Manifesto writers all did.

I do think last time the mainstream media didn't think Corby could win and so he did benefit from little serious examination of his policies. He'll get more next critical examination time.

But, does serious examination of policies actually move many votes?

Most voters are not rational. They vote out of a combination of emotion and self-interest.

So, my guess is (especially if he is up against May or a Vanilla Tory), Corby could do it again.

The problem for the tories is there is a significant number of people who don’t feel the current globalised liberal economy works for them, hence brexit. Jezzas, like trump, the superficial message is attractive and the tories appear to zero new ideas while also unable to illustrate the benefits of the globalised capitalist system.

For the past 20 years, all the political parties and the media have been onboard the current system (give or take an extra bit of tax being redirected). But pro globalism, pro large scale immigration, etc etc etc, but stoke man doesn’t think it is doing much for them.

All else being equal, the next election would be a Tory slam dunk. The economy is recovering, austerity is easing off, unemployment is low, real wages are rising, and Labour is led by an incompetent lefty. It's the 1987 election but with Eric Heffer rather than Neil Kinnock.

Problem is that Brexit means that things are very much not equal.

I am not sure I agree. The fact so many people seem unfazed by a leader with all of jezzas baggage screams warning bells to me. Yes Maybot is crap, Tory paralysis because of brexit, but there is more going on.

Maybot is crap, Tories are paralysed by Brexit, wages have only just started regrowing in real terms - and yet Labour is only just level pegging. No, Corbyn is crap.

That said, I agree that a campaign based on Corbyn's baggage would be the wrong way to go. It's his current policies and perceived abilities that need smashing.

Tories weren't paralysed by Brexit when Corbyn got the biggest vote share increase since WW2 for Labour. Electorally Corbyn has been a huge asset to Labour, unless the crapness is based on non electoral things like his political opinions...

No, it's based on losing elections.

Sean_F said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pro_Rata said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

matt said:

Looking at the table, how do people collect enough information to approve or disapprove of Cable? What has he done to merit more than a resigned, “meh”. It’s akin to having a strong opinion on pelargoniums.

Cable is 76 this May. He's the first leader of any of the three main parties to serve into his fourth quarter-century since Churchill - and Churchill fought two elections after that milestone, gaining seats at both and winning one. That's surely a happy omen for Vince?

On 15th August 1867, Benjamin Disraeli's Second Reform Act enfranchised many urban working men and added 938,000 to an electorate of 1,057,000 in England and Wales.

This is nearer to Vince Cable's birthdate than today is.

"Don't you know? There'll be a time when everyone you ever met has died" - The Flaming Lips

I had some old, by then infirm, aunts in their 90s when I was primary school age. They would have been born early to mid 1880s. IIRC, and I think this was relayed to me later as well, one of them worked in the chemical factory with and spoke very highly of Chaim Weizman on a personal level.

I wonder what will pass of us into the 22nd century.

That reminds me of an article...

Written by Simon Jenkins for the Eve of the Millenium over ten years ago, the article was entitled “Oliver the Timelord” (An extraordinary memory reminds us of the ambiguities of time).

It starts with a man he knew being addressed, as a child, on the subject of Oliver Cromwell. The speaker was a lady of 91 who told him sternly never to speak ill of the man: She went on:

“My husband’s first wife’s first husband knew Oliver Cromwell—and liked him well.”

http://www.charlesholloway.co.uk/2010/09/a-theory-of-relativity/

That's an extraordinary story.

Fascinating. Time is more elastic that it often appears. The US Government is still paying at least one pension for a Soldier of the American Civil War (ended 1865). https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/civil-war-vets-pension-still-remains-on-governments-payroll-151-years-after-last-shot-fired

Nigel_Foremain said:

You may be being ironic, but if you are not I would say he certainly has not. The country is indeed unfortunate that it has a PM with limited EQ and a LOTO that is of limited IQ. Both are only obsessed by what is in the interest of their parties (or party within a party) rather than what is in the interest of the country. They are both a disgrace to the offices they hold.

No, not being totally unserious. Labour policy is a very soft brexit (a BINO some would say) which seeks to limit the economic pain of leaving the EU. Not obvious to me why this is contra the national interest.

stjohn said:

Tissue_Price said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction (people getting arsey about it probably being the main part).

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1090627558180352000

Despite the misleading information furnished prior to the poll, it is gratifying to see that 52% of people have answered correctly.

I got it wrong! Son of a gun!

In 2016, or today? ;-)

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

I dislike Farage totally but he represents a political opinion that attracks some and instills despair in others.

Let's try to objective about this.

Our political and economic system creates a lot of fertile ground for the kind of populism somebody like Farage can easily exploit. We have to tackle the cause, not the symptom.

On all the objective measures, most people are better off today than at any time in history. Why aren't they happy? Maybe it's because they keep comparing themselves to the 1% on social media. (Or people pretending to be members of the 1%. The real 1% are more discreet).

kinabalu said:

This one might be too easy for you brainboxes, but it has a nuance.

I was in Starbucks and got talking to this woman. Never met her before. Apropos of nothing she showed me a photo of a young man at his uni graduation. “That’s my son,” she announced, pride in her voice. I smiled and asked how many kids she had. “Two,” she replied. I nodded and went quiet for a moment because I was computing the probability that her other child was a daughter. Sort of bloke I am. Didn’t take me long to suss it out. It’s analogous to a sequential dual coin toss. So if I know that at least one is a son (which I do from the photo) there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling is female. I told her this. I said “So there is a 2 in 3 chance that you have a daughter,” and I explained the rationale. The woman was impressed. Things were looking promising here. Unfortunately I then got a little carried away. I jabbed a finger at the photo and barked out my next question. “Is he your eldest?” I demanded. She clammed up and refused to answer. And who could blame her. I was coming over like the gestapo. So I got up and left. Disappointed? Of course. But there is a silver lining. Due to asking that question and despite receiving no reply I was able to revise the probability that she has a daughter. It is no longer 2/3 it is 1/2 ... Or is it?

Actually your initial 2/3 answer was wrong- or at least based on a strange unspoken assumption. If the conversation had opened with you asking "Do you have any boys?" or something equivalent, and her answering yes, then you'd be correct with your 2/3. But since it started with her showing you a photo of one child, you have to ask- what was the process that led to her picking that child to show you a photo of?

One possibility is that she really likes boys. No matter what combination of genders she happened to have in her children, she'd always choose to show you a picture of a boy if possible- only if they were all girls would she show you a picture of a girl. In that case, the chance is, as you reasoned, 2/3. But that's a weird assumption to make about this woman, isn't it?

Conversely, maybe she really likes girls, and would always show you a picture of a girl if possible. In that case the probability of her having a girl is 0, otherwise she'd have showed you one.

A more sensible, neutral assumption is that the way she picked the photo to show you was independent of gender. Maybe she'd always show you the picture of the eldest, maybe it was pretty much random which one happened to be on her mind. In that case, the probability of her having a girl is 0.5. This is analagous to how if you flip two coins, pick one of them at random to look at, and see that it's heads, the probability of the other one being tails is 0.5.

Scott_P said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

A GE just now is the worst of all options as it would not solve anything

It's the worst option, apart from all the others...

Parliament will not vote for the deal.

The EU will not change the deal.

The public are not permitted by the elite to declare if they have changed their minds.

You may consider the HOC will not vote for a deal and the EU will not negotiate, but sadly both of those scenarios increase no deal, not a referendum.

And of course you may yet be surprised on the deal and the EU negotiating stance

Tissue_Price said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A mild distraction (people getting arsey about it probably being the main part).

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1090627558180352000

Despite the misleading information furnished prior to the poll, it is gratifying to see that 52% of people have answered correctly.

Remain voters no doubt, freudian slip LEAVE voters I meant

If someone shows you a picture and says "that's my son" and then tells you that she has two children, I'd estimate the probability is upwards of 75% that the other child is a girl because she might easily have said "that's my [eldest/youngest] son/that's one of my sons" instead if she had two sons. That option would not have been available if the other child is a girl.

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 39% (-1)
CON: 38% (-)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 2% (-)

via @Survation, 30 Jan

Barnesian said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

That's what I thought, I was racking my brains for where the margin might be! The one son of God out of billions of conceptions maybe...

This one might be too easy for you brainboxes, but it has a nuance.

I was in Starbucks and got talking to this woman. Never met her before. Apropos of nothing she showed me a photo of a young man at his uni graduation. “That’s my son,” she announced, pride in her voice. I smiled and asked how many kids she had. “Two,” she replied. I nodded and went quiet for a moment because I was computing the probability that her other child was a daughter. Sort of bloke I am. Didn’t take me long to suss it out. It’s analogous to a sequential dual coin toss. So if I know that at least one is a son (which I do from the photo) there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling is female. I told her this. I said “So there is a 2 in 3 chance that you have a daughter,” and I explained the rationale. The woman was impressed. Things were looking promising here. Unfortunately I then got a little carried away. I jabbed a finger at the photo and barked out my next question. “Is he your eldest?” I demanded. She clammed up and refused to answer. And who could blame her. I was coming over like the gestapo. So I got up and left. Disappointed? Of course. But there is a silver lining. Due to asking that question and despite receiving no reply I was able to revise the probability that she has a daughter. It is no longer 2/3 it is 1/2 ... Or is it?

I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.

Quite. I suspect the reason she clammed up was that she realised that he didn't know what he was talking about.

I suspect the reason she clammed up was that she thought he was trying to work out her age.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You think so

OK, so a 'blinder' is pushing it. But I do not see great cause for complaint. Brexit was born and raised a Tory. It is true blue and the blues are in government. Labour in opposition are respecting its fundamental rights - it must not be killed - and have even proposed their own (suitably soft) iteration of it.

What more can anyone reasonably expect?

AlastairMeeks said:

If someone shows you a picture and says "that's my son" and then tells you that she has two children, I'd estimate the probability is upwards of 75% that the other child is a girl because she might easily have said "that's my [eldest/youngest] son/that's one of my sons" instead if she had two sons. That option would not have been available if the other child is a girl.

Great spot !

IanB2 said:

The fence isn't as healthy a place as originally thought!

Well if you're trying to avoid splinters in your arse party it can be a bit awkward.

AndyJS said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kinabalu said:

What's with the public slagging off Jeremy Corbyn? Are they such a bunch of super honest and super intelligent angels themselves? Hardly. Look at the state of them. And yet they look down on a guy who has dedicated his life to a great cause and has risen to lead our premier political party. Utterly pathetic. This 'poll' says far more about them than it does about JC.

You're assuming that they think of dishonesty and stupidity as undesirable characteristics in a politician. Past election results suggest the reverse.

I was watching Nigel Farage gurn in the European parliament yesterday and I asked myself a similar question; what could attract someone to vote for this uniquely repulsive man other than a common purpose?

I dislike Farage totally but he represents a political opinion that attracks some and instills despair in others.

Let's try to objective about this.

Our political and economic system creates a lot of fertile ground for the kind of populism somebody like Farage can easily exploit. We have to tackle the cause, not the symptom.

On all the objective measures, most people are better off today than at any time in history. Why aren't they happy? Maybe it's because they keep comparing themselves to the 1% on social media. (Or people pretending to be members of the 1%. The real 1% are more discreet).

It's our strength and weakness as a species that we take things for granted. If we're used to real incomes growing at the rate of 2 - 2.5% a year, then we'll be furious if they grow at half that rate.

Barnesian said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

That's what I thought, I was racking my brains for where the margin might be! The one son of God out of billions of conceptions maybe...

This one might be too easy for you brainboxes, but it has a nuance.

I was in Starbucks and got talking to this woman. Never met her before. Apropos of nothing she showed me a photo of a young man at his uni graduation. “That’s my son,” she announced, pride in her voice. I smiled and asked how many kids she had. “Two,” she replied. I nodded and went quiet for a moment because I was computing the probability that her other child was a daughter. Sort of bloke I am. Didn’t take me long to suss it out. It’s analogous to a sequential dual coin toss. So if I know that at least one is a son (which I do from the photo) there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling is female. I told her this. I said “So there is a 2 in 3 chance that you have a daughter,” and I explained the rationale. The woman was impressed. Things were looking promising here. Unfortunately I then got a little carried away. I jabbed a finger at the photo and barked out my next question. “Is he your eldest?” I demanded. She clammed up and refused to answer. And who could blame her. I was coming over like the gestapo. So I got up and left. Disappointed? Of course. But there is a silver lining. Due to asking that question and despite receiving no reply I was able to revise the probability that she has a daughter. It is no longer 2/3 it is 1/2 ... Or is it?

I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.

Quite. I suspect the reason she clammed up was that she realised that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The reasoning with coins is if you rule out tt (e.g. by asking somebody who knows the answer "was one of the results heads?") then you're left with hh, ht, th, so the chance of at least one tails is 2/3. That's accurate, it's just not analagous to the situation described.

Tissue_Price said:

Barnesian said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

That's what I thought, I was racking my brains for where the margin might be! The one son of God out of billions of conceptions maybe...

This one might be too easy for you brainboxes, but it has a nuance.

I was in Starbucks and got talking to this woman. Never met her before. Apropos of nothing she showed me a photo of a young man at his uni graduation. “That’s my son,” she announced, pride in her voice. I smiled and asked how many kids she had. “Two,” she replied. I nodded and went quiet for a moment because I was computing the probability that her other child was a daughter. Sort of bloke I am. Didn’t take me long to suss it out. It’s analogous to a sequential dual coin toss. So if I know that at least one is a son (which I do from the photo) there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling is female. I told her this. I said “So there is a 2 in 3 chance that you have a daughter,” and I explained the rationale. The woman was impressed. Things were looking promising here. Unfortunately I then got a little carried away. I jabbed a finger at the photo and barked out my next question. “Is he your eldest?” I demanded. She clammed up and refused to answer. And who could blame her. I was coming over like the gestapo. So I got up and left. Disappointed? Of course. But there is a silver lining. Due to asking that question and despite receiving no reply I was able to revise the probability that she has a daughter. It is no longer 2/3 it is 1/2 ... Or is it?

I can't see what you are misunderstanding here, but you are wrong. The probability of the second child's sex is 50/50 irrespective of the sex of the first. Furthermore, the chances of sequential dual coin tosses hh, ht, th, tt are 25% each. There is no outcome or group of outcomes for which the odds are 66%.

Quite. I suspect the reason she clammed up was that she realised that he didn't know what he was talking about.

2/3 is a perfectly sound mathematical answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

Though Alastair is quite right to draw a Bayesian inference from the way in which normal people would answer the initial question.

Perhaps we should stop there, otherwise we'll be opening doors with goats behind them before we know it.

No, I think it is a half in this particular situation. On opening doors and the Monty Hall problem, the interesting thing is that, at least when first posed, Britons favoured one answer and Americans the other, because the key to the paradox is that the set-up is ambiguous, and Americans were filling in gaps from their knowledge of the game show.

Sean_F said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pro_Rata said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

matt said:

Looking at the table, how do people collect enough information to approve or disapprove of Cable? What has he done to merit more than a resigned, “meh”. It’s akin to having a strong opinion on pelargoniums.

Cable is 76 this May. He's the first leader of any of the three main parties to serve into his fourth quarter-century since Churchill - and Churchill fought two elections after that milestone, gaining seats at both and winning one. That's surely a happy omen for Vince?

On 15th August 1867, Benjamin Disraeli's Second Reform Act enfranchised many urban working men and added 938,000 to an electorate of 1,057,000 in England and Wales.

This is nearer to Vince Cable's birthdate than today is.

"Don't you know? There'll be a time when everyone you ever met has died" - The Flaming Lips

I had some old, by then infirm, aunts in their 90s when I was primary school age. They would have been born early to mid 1880s. IIRC, and I think this was relayed to me later as well, one of them worked in the chemical factory with and spoke very highly of Chaim Weizman on a personal level.

I wonder what will pass of us into the 22nd century.

That reminds me of an article...

Written by Simon Jenkins for the Eve of the Millenium over ten years ago, the article was entitled “Oliver the Timelord” (An extraordinary memory reminds us of the ambiguities of time).

It starts with a man he knew being addressed, as a child, on the subject of Oliver Cromwell. The speaker was a lady of 91 who told him sternly never to speak ill of the man: She went on:

“My husband’s first wife’s first husband knew Oliver Cromwell—and liked him well.”

http://www.charlesholloway.co.uk/2010/09/a-theory-of-relativity/

That's an extraordinary story.

In a similar vein, two grandchildren of John Tyler, 10th POTUS (1841-1845), are still alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler

https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/1090917320426471429

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn has any problems with Jews who share his general world outlook, and indeed there is abundant evidence that he does not. I do think that Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews who disagree with his general world outlook and that he has no sympathy or feeling for them or their concerns, and that he treats them as a hostile bloc to be defeated and isolated rather than to be understood.

Whether you call that anti-Semitism, I don't know. I think it's a subset of a way that he mentally otherises hostile groups (eg Tories).

Everything I have seen of his attitudes on this subject lead me to conclude he is an anti-Semite. The fact that he does not dislike some Jews that share his views is like saying someone is not racist against blacks because he likes good ol' Uncle Tom.

another_richard said:

German retail sales for December 2018.

Down 4.3% on the month
Down 2.1% on the year

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2019/01/PE19_035_45212.html

Imagine the headlines if that had happened in this country.

And their government is running a 50bn euro surplus. Cut bloody taxes! Now!

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Perhaps Jew hating is not universally regarded as an unalloyed good.

Do you really think he hates Jews?

No he doesn't. He's a socialist, and anti-Semitism is very rare among socialists. It is however, rife among Communists and Trotskyists, and he views the latter as allies.

That's certainly a more balanced and reasonable view imo, Sean.

I've debated this endlessly with the more intelligent half of my principal partnership. She's half-Jewish and recently researched the matter in preparation for a piece of work she did for the Jewish Chronicle. As a result of her inquiries she came reluctantly to the view that he was indeed anti-Semitic, but I remain unconvinced. I think it is more that he is apt to posture, and he's pretty selective about who he postures with. There's nothing much wrong with this, especially as a back-bench MP, but it doesn't really wash for a potential PM. It's certainly not helpful for the Labour Party.

As you correctly point out, anti-Semitism is rare among socialists. I like to think this is because socialism is incompatible with stupidity and prejudice, but whatever the reasons it's disappointing that Corbyn has not been more successful in distancing his Party from such an odious outlook.

But then that's not the only major contemporary theme on which he has disappointed.

I tended towards giving him the benefit of the doubt - i.e. your/Sean's charitable interpretation, until the "English irony" comments surfaced.

Yeah, it's a difficult one to call and a case can well be made for differing views. Maybe he's not entirely sure himself, and doesn't reflect on the point at which an entirely legitimate sympathy for the Palestinian cause and antipathy to US policy in the Middle East shades off into a form of anti-Semitism.

That kind of thing is not uncommon. Although I myself am commendably free of prejudice it is not so apparent if you start talking about Cricket.

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

twitter.com/UKIP/status/1090917320426471429

And we all thought Prof Nutall was a joke....

What time are they jumping a shark in the Thames?

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

twitter.com/UKIP/status/1090917320426471429

And we all thought Prof Nutall was a joke....

Another triumph for Gerard Batshit MEP.

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think that Jeremy Corbyn has any problems with Jews who share his general world outlook, and indeed there is abundant evidence that he does not. I do think that Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews who disagree with his general world outlook and that he has no sympathy or feeling for them or their concerns, and that he treats them as a hostile bloc to be defeated and isolated rather than to be understood.

Whether you call that anti-Semitism, I don't know. I think it's a subset of a way that he mentally otherises hostile groups (eg Tories).

I agree with this...Obviously then the big problem comes for Jezza in that the vast majority of Jews are supportive of Israel's right to exist. The Jews he doesn't mind are the ones that are often only culturally Jewish, very left wing and have massive hang-ups about the existence of a Jewish state.

Its a bit like saying I am definitely not Islamophobic, because I quite like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Half of my family are Jewish, and most of them have at best extremely mixed views about Israel and the UK (and US's) posture towards it. I'm not claiming that they're in the majority, but taking your viewpoint, it's as if they are somehow not properly Jewish. And in fact, according to your reasoning, by not falling in line they too are antisemetic.

The idea that you have to agree with a political position on Israel to be a true Jew (and that disagreeing with it is a form of bigotry) is extremely insidious, and is in fact the exact same conflation that true antisemites use when they imply that Israel's actions justify hatred of Jews.

justin124 said:

'All the changes of government have been predated by the opposition leader having substantially better ratings than the incumbent Prime Minister. '

That was not the case in 1970 when Heath defeated Wilson - nor in 1979 when Thatcher beat Callaghan. Also very unlikely to have been true in 1945 when Attlee triumphed.

The difference being that for all their faults, Heath, Thatcher and Attlee were not thicker than the average plank.