Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle of the GE2015 predictors: Baxter versus Fisher

SystemSystem Posts: 11,724
edited August 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle of the GE2015 predictors: Baxter versus Fisher

The chart shows the main predictions for GE2015 from the two leading predictors – the long-standing Electoral Calculus from Martin Baxter and the relatively new one from Stephen Fisher.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,959
    Baxter seems pretty bearish on another hung parliament. The LD seat losses will make it mathematically more difficult, but the vote shares seem to be heading right for one. Surprised Baxter is so sure (~25% chance vs ~50% with Fisher).
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Fisher vs Jacks ARSE would be another interesting one!

    Too close to call...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Isn't Baxter UNS as well?
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    What's predictive about Baxter's method? Is he really predicting that the election will have the same result as the last month's polling?
  • Options
    Baxter, in effect, predicts what would happen if there were a general election to the House of Commons tomorrow, and people voted as current opinion polling suggests that they will. Fisher is engaged in a far more dubious game of speculative Joachimism. This explains the disparity.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Fisher vs Jacks ARSE would be another interesting one!

    Too close to call...

    I have ventured a few pounds on Jacks McARSE for the indy ref, so we shall have an early indicator.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,157
    edited August 2014
    The other feature of the Fisher thing - don't know if he's fixed it - is that a lot of the data his thing was based on was really, really old, and the pollsters have already responded to them by tweaking things so they don't make the same mistakes, so the numbers are getting unskewed twice, once by the pollster and once by Fisher.

    It's gradually converging on reality as the election approaches and Fisher's model does progressively less unskewing.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,157

    What's predictive about Baxter's method? Is he really predicting that the election will have the same result as the last month's polling?

    I think technically it's a projection, not a prediction. You should be able to do better with a model that takes into account certain previous shifts between mid-term polling and actual elections, but unfortunately the way Fisher does it (or at least did it, he may have changed it) is barking mad.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,087
    Have to go with Baxter on this one, purely on plausibility levels, but that depends on how different 2015 really is. I think it is different, but the bits about it that are different from 2010 at least (increased, to some extent, UKIP vote, LD losses to some degree) are pretty simple and, some of them having been consistent for so long, more solid when predicting the 2015 result.
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I agree that 2015 will be different to previous elections because of the coalition and UKIP. If Labour obtain the third of 2010 LD votes that polls predict and UKIP take more votes off the Tories than Labour, then I expect Labour to win most seats. My prediction is that Labour and Tories will be in the 33 to 36% range, Lib Dems 14-17%, UKIP 10-13%. If you enter into the EC predictor tool Con 35%, Lab 34%, LD 16% , UKIP 10%, you get Con 278, Lab 310, LD 35. This is about the result that I think could happen.

  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    A prediction of a hypothetical isn't a useful prediction. Baxter becomes useful in May 2015. Fisher may be very wrong, we'll see, but at least he's making a prediction about how things will change. To compare the two is strange.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Baxter uses uniform swing which as 2010 showed just doesn't happen.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,949
    I agree with Fisher.
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    To pointlessly tie together two issues from the last thread, the 22 page paperback thriller "Complaint Against Lloyd Quinan MSP" is no longer available from Amazon. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complaint-Against-Lloyd-Quinan-MSP/dp/0338405046
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I don't agree with any of them. I watch ICM and see what that is telling me. ICM says we are in crossover territory. The next six months will tell everyone what they need to know, and that means looking closely at ICM but taking cognisance of the other pollsters. ICM is the gold standard.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,157
    TGOHF said:

    Baxter uses uniform swing which as 2010 showed just doesn't happen.

    Doesn't Fisher use uniform swing as well? If not, what does he use? We know uniform swing isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good approximation.
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited August 2014
    Reading between the lines, one gets the impression that Mike isn't wholly convinced by Stephen Fisher's methodology and therefore in his GE seat projections.
    This is all the more surprising comparing him with Martin Baxter when one considers that, and I'm whispering this very quietly, whereas Fisher sees the LibDems winning all of 28 seats come next May, Baxter on the other hand sees them down and out with only 17, that's SEVENTEEN seats ..... barely four London Cabs full in Martin Day speak!
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Speaking of uniform swing, Tiger has withdrawn from the WGC Bridgestone event with back spasms.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,024
    edited August 2014
    Tim_B said:

    Speaking of uniform swing, Tiger has withdrawn from the WGC Bridgestone event with back spasms.

    Oh you!
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    RobD said:

    Tim_B said:

    Speaking of uniform swing, Tiger has withdrawn from the WGC Bridgestone event with back spasms.

    Oh you!
    Just par for the course......
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Ukip remain unpredictable.The Glastonbury occultist infiltration might not do much damage on its' own but if other similar situations were to arise,satanists in South Thanet for example,it would indicate entryism and the question whether such groups,parties within parties,in effect,may need to be "proscribed".In the event of further similar occultist revelations,the public will need to know if they are voting for people who are in touch with Archangels or not.This would Farage's biggest test of leadership yet.Ukip remain unpredictable.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    hucks67 said:

    I agree that 2015 will be different to previous elections because of the coalition and UKIP. If Labour obtain the third of 2010 LD votes that polls predict and UKIP take more votes off the Tories than Labour, then I expect Labour to win most seats. My prediction is that Labour and Tories will be in the 33 to 36% range, Lib Dems 14-17%, UKIP 10-13%. If you enter into the EC predictor tool Con 35%, Lab 34%, LD 16% , UKIP 10%, you get Con 278, Lab 310, LD 35. This is about the result that I think could happen.

    I'm going to go with the Tories at 36%, Labour at 33%, LD at 14%, UK at 9%, Other 8%. I don't have a detailed view on how this translates to seats, but my gut says Tories largest party and a continuation of the Coalition, although probably for not more than a year or so.

    (Rather amusingly Baxter makes this 298/298/27/0 with 18 other (NI) and 9 Nats. I think that means no 2-way Coalition would work in theory, although excluding SF/Speaker you'd just creep over the edge.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Fisher and Baxter fighting it out over silver and bronze ....

    I wish them well contesting the minor placings.

  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045
    O/T Gaza.

    Milliband is right and Cameron is wrong on this key foreign issue.

    Cameron is looking very isolated and quite frankly an idiot not to oppose the war crimes that Israel is committing.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    It's true that we pb-dot-comists follow polls somewhat more keenly that the general public---and I'm playing at understatement here. Nevertheless a few questions suggest themselves to me. Apologies should their answers be common knowledge.

    Has political polling increased in frequency over the last few years, and if so by how much?

    If there has been a significant increase could that be expected to influence in any way whether and how people vote, or indeed to make them more politically aware or loosen preconceived attitudes?

    Could these queries themselves be studied by polling?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,710
    edited August 2014
    Toms said:

    It's true that we pb-dot-comists follow polls somewhat more keenly that the general public---and I'm playing at understatement here. Nevertheless a few questions suggest themselves to me. Apologies should their answers be common knowledge.

    Has political polling increased in frequency over the last few years, and if so by how much?

    If there has been a significant increase could that be expected to influence in any way whether and how people vote, or indeed to make them more politically aware or loosen preconceived attitudes?

    Could these queries themselves be studied by polling?

    I made this point earlier on this week.

    In July 2009 there were 8 (eight) Westminster VI polls conducted

    In July 2014 there were 43 (forty three) Westminster VI polls conducted.

    Edit: Another analysis

    In July 2009 there were 5 (five) non yougov Westminster VI polls conducted

    In July 2014 there were 20 (twenty) non yougov Westminster VI polls conducted.
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    murali_s said:

    O/T Gaza.

    Milliband is right and Cameron is wrong on this key foreign issue.

    Cameron is looking very isolated and quite frankly an idiot not to oppose the war crimes that Israel is committing.

    Milliband was right to go to America for a 25 minute photo opportunity with Obama, rather than attend the debate on Gaza? It's an opinion I suppose.
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    murali_s said:

    O/T Gaza.

    Milliband is right and Cameron is wrong on this key foreign issue.

    Cameron is looking very isolated and quite frankly an idiot not to oppose the war crimes that Israel is committing.

    Nobody supports war crimes.

    Certainly Cameron has been more supportive of Israel, but he doesn't (yet) look isolated because most people in the UK are far too cynical of both sides. Accusing Miliband of playing politics should do enough for him. Nevertheless I'm sure even from a political perspective this is something he could do without.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,526
    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2014
    Their fighting old wars.
    Baxter is fighting 2010, Fisher 1997.

    Some people don't understand that each election is unique under the circumstances of each historical period and past performance doesn't guarantee future success.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    murali_s said:

    O/T Gaza.

    Milliband is right and Cameron is wrong on this key foreign issue.

    Cameron is looking very isolated and quite frankly an idiot not to oppose the war crimes that Israel is committing.

    Given that Cameron can usually be relied upon to gob-off on just about any issue (and make himself look weak and stupid in the process) it does look a bit odd that he has said so little over the current fight in Gaza. However, I am not at all convinced that he looks isolated or any more idiotic than usual.

    Actually a period of silence from Cameron after his pathetic posturing at the NATO summit last week should be welcomed.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Good evening, everyone.

    I read about Miliband's odd attack on Cameron over Gaza. Given Miliband was too busy posing for piccies with Obama instead of attending the Commons statement on the matter perhaps he ought to consider the beam in his own eye.
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045
    edited August 2014
    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,526
    On topic this is once again comparing apples and pears and is therefore meaningless. Baxter is simply a projection of the current polling. Does anyone believe that is not going to change before May next year? Of course it will.

    What is yet to be proven is whether it will change the way that Fisher projects. Like OGH I have reservations about the use of history in this current unusual position. The evidence for the sort of swingback he is assuming has been pretty modest over the last 3 or so months, the tories having made some progress before that. This has resulted in an ever decreasing probability of a tory majority and an increasing probability that Labour will be the largest party. I expect these trends to continue over the next few months.

    I still expect the tories to win the popular vote but not by as much as Fisher is projecting and probably not enough to stay the largest party in terms of seats. Something like 36-33 to the tories would be my current guess which makes Ed PM, probably of a minority government since I expect the electoral advantages for Labour to be less pronounced than they were in 2010.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    True, the only opinion that matters in this is that of the New York Times owner.
  • Options
    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,526
    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    I agree it is awful and disgraceful. I just wish our politicians would generally be a bit more realistic about their role in the world.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Eagles, interesting comment.

    Speaking of interesting comments, do check your Diplomatic inbox.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.


    Baxter does not try to predict the future while Fisher is.

    If the result on election day is different that Fisher's prediction today then it would be correct to say that Fisher was wrong.
  • Options

    Mr. Eagles, interesting comment.

    Speaking of interesting comments, do check your Diplomatic inbox.

    Okies
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Fisher may slowly adjust his predictions as May 2015 - just like anyone else, so what's the big deal ?

    However, who can forget his prediction a year or more back that the Tories had a 97% chance of getting an absolute majority. Yet now he barely manages a 26%.

    What went wrong with the model ?
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Speedy said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.


    Baxter does not try to predict the future while Fisher is.

    If the result on election day is different that Fisher's prediction today then it would be correct to say that Fisher was wrong.
    Fisher's (as is Baxter's, in a different sense) is probabilistic. Therefore it is difficult to prove that the prediction was wrong. Consider:

    Con : 34.9 plus or minus 7.7 i.e. between 27 and 43

    Imagine that the Tories poll 26%. All Fisher's model says is that the chance of that happening is some figure less than 2.5%. The fact it has happened does not disprove the model - if I win the lottery, that is not to say the odds weren't 13.8m to one. What we have to ask is, was Fisher wrong to think this was a particularly unlikely outcome. The best we can do is to say, look, nothing exceptional has happened (if it hasn't), and yet this has happened.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,526
    What I am finding Fisher useful for is that he has effectively outlined a route map to a tory victory. It is not only a route map but a measure of the progress that they should have made on that journey at any given point.

    What we have been seeing week by week over the last 3 months is that the tories are not making the progress down that path they need to make to achieve their desired result. it is of course possible that they might "catch up" if things went their way. But they are well behind where they should be if they were going to achieve a comfortable majority and they are falling further behind week by week.

    Put it another way, if the Fisher projections are correct the tories are already running out of time.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    DavidL said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    I agree it is awful and disgraceful. I just wish our politicians would generally be a bit more realistic about their role in the world.

    That reminds me of what I read about the americans saying about Libya, it's all Cameron's fault not ours :
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/03/it-s-not-the-usa-that-made-libya-the-disaster-it-is-today.html

    "We did not have much involvement with Libya under Gaddafi, we did not launder his money, and we did not have boots on the ground in the revolution. For the most part, Europeans flew the NATO bombing runs that pounded Gaddafi’s troops; we refueled them."
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    As mike posted the other day, Yougov monthly average Lab leads since Jan 2013

    9 11 11 9 9 8 7 6 5 6 7 6 6 6 4 4 3 4 3

    It astonishes me that so much energy is devoted to extrapolating counterfactual nowcasts - an indefensible procedure - and so little to extrapolating the trend when the trend is as clear as this.
  • Options
    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    Since 2001 they are almost hitting the bullseye.
  • Options
    Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited August 2014

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    There is an order of magnitude of difference between recording how people actually voted, and then forecasting the seat distribution, and the oracular political science Fisher is currently devoted to.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2014

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    They were very good from 1997 onwards, and were almost exactly correct in 2005 and 2010. 1979 and 1983 were also pretty accurate.
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Evening all and on thread, Baxter only seeks to show how the House of Commons would look if an election had taken place based on the polls from the preceding month.

    Fisher is trying to project forward. Let's get 6 weeks time over and done with first. The result of the Indy Ref will have a huge bearing on the outcome of the GE regardless of whether it is a YES or a NO.
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    Since 2001 they are almost hitting the bullseye.
    Thanks to Professor Fisher.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,526
    Speedy said:

    DavidL said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    I agree it is awful and disgraceful. I just wish our politicians would generally be a bit more realistic about their role in the world.

    That reminds me of what I read about the americans saying about Libya, it's all Cameron's fault not ours :
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/03/it-s-not-the-usa-that-made-libya-the-disaster-it-is-today.html

    "We did not have much involvement with Libya under Gaddafi, we did not launder his money, and we did not have boots on the ground in the revolution. For the most part, Europeans flew the NATO bombing runs that pounded Gaddafi’s troops; we refueled them."
    I am not weeping any tears for Gaddafi and I think we were right to intervene there as it was within our capabilities to do so and prevent a massacre by someone that we had no reason to like or even tolerate despite Tony's grovelling in the desert. It is not out fault that the Libyans have not taken advantage of the opportunities they were given.

    Israel is a whole different kettle of fish.


  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Easterross, quite so. How do you see the referendum going, both in terms of Yes/NO and how the numbers stack up?
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    There is an order of magnitude of difference between recording how people actually voted, and then forecasting the seat distribution, and the oracular political science Fisher is currently devoted to.
    Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
  • Options

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    There is an order of magnitude of difference between recording how people actually voted, and then forecasting the seat distribution, and the oracular political science Fisher is currently devoted to.
    I know. My point is he knows the variables for different circumstances.

    I've read his articles on it.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    Since 2001 they are almost hitting the bullseye.
    Thanks to Professor Fisher.

    His method of getting the result while the election is still going on is remarkably accurate, but it is sensible to question his method of predicting the far future with a polling average from 1970 till 2010.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    hucks67 said:

    I agree that 2015 will be different to previous elections because of the coalition and UKIP. If Labour obtain the third of 2010 LD votes that polls predict and UKIP take more votes off the Tories than Labour, then I expect Labour to win most seats. My prediction is that Labour and Tories will be in the 33 to 36% range, Lib Dems 14-17%, UKIP 10-13%. If you enter into the EC predictor tool Con 35%, Lab 34%, LD 16% , UKIP 10%, you get Con 278, Lab 310, LD 35. This is about the result that I think could happen.

    I'm going to go with the Tories at 36%, Labour at 33%, LD at 14%, UK at 9%, Other 8%. I don't have a detailed view on how this translates to seats, but my gut says Tories largest party and a continuation of the Coalition, although probably for not more than a year or so.

    (Rather amusingly Baxter makes this 298/298/27/0 with 18 other (NI) and 9 Nats. I think that means no 2-way Coalition would work in theory, although excluding SF/Speaker you'd just creep over the edge.
    There is a very narrow window where Lib Dems could not by themselves make the coalition. Thatis if "others" = 27/28. Then mathematically, if Labour and the Tories are equal or within a couple of seats and > 295 and <300, then Lib Dems cannot be the Coalition maker. I am not taking into account Speaker, Dep. Speaker, SF. So the 300 will come down by 1 or 2.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    edited August 2014
    As the General Election approaches, there must be convergence between FIsher and Baxter models as Baxter is a nowcast, and Fisher a forecast which are both based off the polls.

    For there not to be a gap at the current point would be highly unusual and would indicate that no swing (either way) is expected from now till May 2015.

    Personally I think Fisher is slightly closer to the actual result than Baxter right now - in particular for Labour seats. My estimate of 312 fits between the two which makes sense to me.


  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Pulpstar said:

    As the General Election approaches, there must be convergence between FIsher and Baxter models as Baxter is a nowcast, and Fisher a forecast which are both based off the polls.

    For there not to be a gap at the current point would be highly unusual and would indicate that no swing (either way) is expected from now till May 2015.

    Personally I think Fisher is slightly closer to the actual result than Baxter right now - in particular for Labour seats. My estimate of 312 fits between the two which makes sense to me.


    October is probably the last chance for the Fisher model, if there is no swing back by then, its over.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Speedy said:

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    Since 2001 they are almost hitting the bullseye.
    Thanks to Professor Fisher.

    I am looking forward to Fisher's prediction of a 97% Tory absolute majority chance.
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Speedy, beware of black swans.

    Worth recalling 2011 when everything seemed to happen out of nowhere. Tsunami, earthquake, nuclear meltdown (almost), and the Arab Spring.

    Ebola still isn't contained.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the General Election approaches, there must be convergence between FIsher and Baxter models as Baxter is a nowcast, and Fisher a forecast which are both based off the polls.

    For there not to be a gap at the current point would be highly unusual and would indicate that no swing (either way) is expected from now till May 2015.

    Personally I think Fisher is slightly closer to the actual result than Baxter right now - in particular for Labour seats. My estimate of 312 fits between the two which makes sense to me.


    October is probably the last chance for the Fisher model, if there is no swing back by then, its over.
    Seems to be happening in the Yougov monthly average - which is by far the largest collection of polling data - but its a pretty slow swingback I'll agree with that. If the polls go as you say then I suspect Mr Fisher will be predicting Lab seats 300+ in October.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,024
    surbiton said:

    Speedy said:

    surbiton said:

    On topic, Stephen Fisher, was one of the architects of the very accurate exit poll at the last General Election.

    He's very good at this sort of thing.

    Whereas the Baxter model is a nowcast.

    So it is possible for them to be both right.

    Exit poll , by definition, is based on what has already happened. They choose wards in such a way that it replicates the electorate. The same way the US news channels announce the winne r on the hour as polling stations close.

    It is relatively easy.

    Th
    The history of exit polls in this country prior to 2010 wasn't exactly covered in glory.
    Since 2001 they are almost hitting the bullseye.
    Thanks to Professor Fisher.

    I am looking forward to Fisher's prediction of a 97% Tory absolute majority chance.
    As am I.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    TGOHF said:

    Baxter uses uniform swing which as 2010 showed just doesn't happen.

    Doesn't Fisher use uniform swing as well? If not, what does he use? We know uniform swing isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good approximation.
    My understanding is he uses a UNS of sorts but basically gives the Tories a greater percentage to calculate the UNS figures from.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
    I think he would pass the "Hitler" test.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited August 2014
    There is nothing magical about Fisher's predictions. He just takes current polling data and then extrapolates based on his version of "swingback".

    If "swingback" does not take place [ we should have been in it since the budget ], he could have egg on his face ! Being an academic, it would probably be free range eggs !
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    surbiton said:

    TGOHF said:

    Baxter uses uniform swing which as 2010 showed just doesn't happen.

    Doesn't Fisher use uniform swing as well? If not, what does he use? We know uniform swing isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good approximation.
    My understanding is he uses a UNS of sorts but basically gives the Tories a greater percentage to calculate the UNS figures from.
    He uses UNS but has a swingback to the Gov't (Both Lib Dem and Conservative) I think
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick

    Monday's Independent front page "Miliband warned of Ukip
    threat to Labour majority

  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    surbiton said:

    There is nothing magical about Fisher's predictions. He just takes current polling data and then extrapolates based on his version of "swingback".

    If "swingback" does not take place [ we should have been in it since the budget ], he could have egg on his face ! Being an academic, it would probably be free range eggs !

    I missed my opportunity to enquire after egg eating habits when I met him, clearly... !
  • Options
    The front of tomorrow's Indy has Matthew Goodwin saying Labour are vulnerable to UKIP and that Great Grimsby is at the greatest risk to UKIP.

    Some wise and modest fellow did tip UKIP taking Grimsby at 16/1
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Eagles, what's the current state of play in Grimsby?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,034
    edited August 2014

    The front of tomorrow's Indy has Matthew Goodwin saying Labour are vulnerable to UKIP and that Great Grimsby is at the greatest risk to UKIP.

    Some wise and modest fellow did tip UKIP taking Grimsby at 16/1

    Labour top target Thurrock is vulnerable too and UKIP are a bigger obstacle there right now to winning the seats than the Conservatives I think. If UKIP didn;t exist it would probably be a Labour gain with lower odds than now...
  • Options

    Mr. Eagles, what's the current state of play in Grimsby?

    You can now back UKIP at 5/1 in Grimsby.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Eagles, terribly sorry, I was a bit imprecise. I meant in electoral terms in 2010.
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Pulpstar said:

    The front of tomorrow's Indy has Matthew Goodwin saying Labour are vulnerable to UKIP and that Great Grimsby is at the greatest risk to UKIP.

    Some wise and modest fellow did tip UKIP taking Grimsby at 16/1

    Labour top target Thurrock is vulnerable too and UKIP are a bigger obstacle there right now to winning the seats than the Conservatives I think. If UKIP didn;t exist it would probably be a Labour gain with lower odds than now...
    In Thurrock, UKIP will want to frame it as a choice between UKIP and the Tories, rather than UKIP and Labour, I think. Not quite my area but you get a feeling on this sort of thing.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,710
    edited August 2014

    Mr. Eagles, terribly sorry, I was a bit imprecise. I meant in electoral terms in 2010.

    Lab majority of less than 1k over the Tories, UKIP 8,000 behind

    http://tinyurl.com/HannnibalWasRubbish

    The Lab MP is standing down, and he's very eurosceptic/Old Labour.

    But the 2010 Tory candidate is now the UKIP candidate, but UKIP are crazy to select her, because she's erm interesting

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653896/UKIP-councillor-accused-racism-send-lot-video-chosen-stand-party-target-seat-Great-Grimsby.html
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
    I think he would pass the "Hitler" test.
    A racial test rather than a religious one. If your point is that Miliband is obliged to behave in a certain way by his religion, it is factually wrong. If it's that he is obliged to behave in a certain way by his racial origins, it is ludicrous.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,024
    edited August 2014

    Mr. Eagles, terribly sorry, I was a bit imprecise. I meant in electoral terms in 2010.

    Here you go Mr D:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. Eagles, that does sound like an interesting seat to watch come the election. Cheers for the info.
  • Options

    Mr. Eagles, that does sound like an interesting seat to watch come the election. Cheers for the info.

    It is.

    Has the potential to become an interesting three way
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the General Election approaches, there must be convergence between FIsher and Baxter models as Baxter is a nowcast, and Fisher a forecast which are both based off the polls.

    For there not to be a gap at the current point would be highly unusual and would indicate that no swing (either way) is expected from now till May 2015.

    Personally I think Fisher is slightly closer to the actual result than Baxter right now - in particular for Labour seats. My estimate of 312 fits between the two which makes sense to me.


    October is probably the last chance for the Fisher model, if there is no swing back by then, its over.
    Seems to be happening in the Yougov monthly average - which is by far the largest collection of polling data - but its a pretty slow swingback I'll agree with that. If the polls go as you say then I suspect Mr Fisher will be predicting Lab seats 300+ in October.
    There has been almost no change in the Tory vote for months only a drift of the Labour vote to others, swingback is supposed to be an increase in the government party and a drop in the opposition and so far we haven't seen that.

    Using Fisher's idea of a past performace predicting the future I can spin the past like this:

    In the past 10 elections with regular polling only 5 had swingback, from those 5 two were special circumstances like war (1983) and leadership change (1992), only 3 (1987, 1997 and 2010) were due to the economy, from those 3 only 1 gave a government it's re-election (1987).
    So by past performace, the chances of the Tories staying in power after the next general election is 1 out of 10.

    On average swingback for economic reasons started 15 months before an election.
    And the closest swingback started was 6 months before an election.
    We are now 9 months away so we are getting close to the point of no return.

    This assumption is as accurate as any past performance average you can get.
  • Options
    Gah, that should read, three way marginal.

    Not the other kind of three way.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,671
    Cameron is not usually slow to cause a diplomatic kerfuffle. He's not afraid to meet the Dalai Lama to the fury of China, give Pakistan a good verbal pasting when in India, go after Russia on the basis of zero evidence of their complicity in MH-17, tick the French off for who they sell warships to etc. etc. People have a right to be somewhat confused by the sudden diplomatic silence on this issue.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,030
    Mr. D, thanks :)

    Mr. 1983, zero evidence is open to dispute.

    Miliband might have heard Cameron's views if he'd bothered to turn up to the Commons statement on the matter.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,322
    YouGov Lab lead monthly averages since Jan this year:

    6, 6, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3

    So the Lab lead has halved in 6 months. At that rate the parties would be level in Jan 2015 and Con would be 2% ahead in May 2015 at the GE.

    Of course that's a very crude analysis but it is clear the lead has narrowed over the last 6 months.
  • Options
    Where the eff is Kylie?

    I can't believe I'm having to sit through this for Kylie!
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    If Others = 28 seats and Labour = =>297 , a CONDEM coalition is not possible.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
    I think he would pass the "Hitler" test.
    A racial test rather than a religious one. If your point is that Miliband is obliged to behave in a certain way by his religion, it is factually wrong. If it's that he is obliged to behave in a certain way by his racial origins, it is ludicrous.
    EdM may not self-identify as Jewish but the perception is that that's what he is. So any pronouncement about Israel is fraught with danger.

    This is not a particularly profound observation.

    Judaism race or religion? We really don't have the time and I don't care; as mentioned, Hitler wouldn't have dallied long on the distinction.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,024
    MikeL said:

    YouGov Lab lead monthly averages since Jan this year:

    6, 6, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3

    So the Lab lead has halved in 6 months. At that rate the parties would be level in Jan 2015 and Con would be 2% ahead in May 2015 at the GE.

    Of course that's a very crude analysis but it is clear the lead has narrowed over the last 6 months.

    Careful, you'll be accused of being a PB Hodges if you carry on like that... *titters*
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Cameron is not usually slow to cause a diplomatic kerfuffle. He's not afraid to meet the Dalai Lama to the fury of China, give Pakistan a good verbal pasting when in India, go after Russia on the basis of zero evidence of their complicity in MH-17, tick the French off for who they sell warships to etc. etc. People have a right to be somewhat confused by the sudden diplomatic silence on this issue.

    Except keep quiet when Gazans are being systematically massacred. Maybe there are people with big wallets somewhere on the horizon.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    OH dear, even Labour MP's don't want ED anywhere near their campaign.. hardly surprising really.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11008940/Labour-MPs-reluctant-to-advertise-Ed-Miliband-online.html


    .. but the figures for Dave would be interesting ;)
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    OH dear, even Labour MP's don't want ED anywhere near their campaign.. hardly surprising really.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11008940/Labour-MPs-reluctant-to-advertise-Ed-Miliband-online.html


    .. but the figures for Dave would be interesting ;)



    ps...Is ED on Nick Palmer's website?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    surbiton said:

    Cameron is not usually slow to cause a diplomatic kerfuffle. He's not afraid to meet the Dalai Lama to the fury of China, give Pakistan a good verbal pasting when in India, go after Russia on the basis of zero evidence of their complicity in MH-17, tick the French off for who they sell warships to etc. etc. People have a right to be somewhat confused by the sudden diplomatic silence on this issue.

    Except keep quiet when Gazans are being systematically massacred. Maybe there are people with big wallets somewhere on the horizon.
    What do you mean "big wallets" @surbiton‌?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,671

    Mr. D, thanks :)

    Mr. 1983, zero evidence is open to dispute.

    Miliband might have heard Cameron's views if he'd bothered to turn up to the Commons statement on the matter.

    It is open to dispute whether they have evidence. It is not open to dispute that they have not provided any evidence. Nor are they likely to do so.

    Most recent anonymous press briefing discussed:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-22/us-state-department-confident-mh17-mistakenly-downed-separatists-finds-no-direct-lin

    As for hearing Cameron's views, it's not about him expressing 'a view'; it's about him taking a stand against a wholly unjustified and disproportionate military campaign, which is causing a humanitarian disaster. He's quite hot on condemning 'slaughter' of a regime's 'own people' usually.


  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    surbiton said:

    Cameron is not usually slow to cause a diplomatic kerfuffle. He's not afraid to meet the Dalai Lama to the fury of China, give Pakistan a good verbal pasting when in India, go after Russia on the basis of zero evidence of their complicity in MH-17, tick the French off for who they sell warships to etc. etc. People have a right to be somewhat confused by the sudden diplomatic silence on this issue.

    Except keep quiet when Gazans are being systematically massacred. Maybe there are people with big wallets somewhere on the horizon.
    What do you mean "big wallets" @surbiton‌?
    Presumably, people like this guy? -


    "Israel's actions have been disproportionate and risk unnecessary loss of civilian life, said David Cameron and William Hague – not this week but almost exactly eight years ago.

    The occasion was Israel's ground invasion of southern Lebanon, which resulted in more than 1,000 deaths. It appears that the Conservative leadership is once bitten, twice shy, following the backlash caused by those comments. "Not merely unhelpful but downright dangerous," was the verdict of the Tory donor Sir Stanley Kalms at the time."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/03/david-cameron-dilemma-criticising-israel-gaza-offensive
    The Jewish guy you mean? Big wallets refers to the power of the Jewish guys controlling the politicians? Ah! Gotcha.
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
    I think he would pass the "Hitler" test.
    A racial test rather than a religious one. If your point is that Miliband is obliged to behave in a certain way by his religion, it is factually wrong. If it's that he is obliged to behave in a certain way by his racial origins, it is ludicrous.
    EdM may not self-identify as Jewish but the perception is that that's what he is. So any pronouncement about Israel is fraught with danger.

    This is not a particularly profound observation.

    Judaism race or religion? We really don't have the time and I don't care; as mentioned, Hitler wouldn't have dallied long on the distinction.
    You think if the distinction didn't matter to Hitler it shouldn't matter to us either.

    The distinction between being racially and religiously Jewish is pretty easy for most people, if not for you.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,537
    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    TOPPING said:

    murali_s said:

    DavidL said:

    What Britain says or thinks about what is going on in Gaza really does not matter. We are simply not a player in that sort of league anymore. So it is a pretty weird thing for our politicians in general and Ed in particular to get het up about.

    As long as the US is willing to replenish their ammunition I am not really sure anyone's opinion matters.

    At least Ed is calling it out. If Britain's influence is negligible then Cameron SHOULD call it out too. Cameron rightly called it out viz. Sri Lanka and that's probably why the war criminal Mahinda Rajapakse didn't make it to these shores for the Commonwealth Games.

    Cameron should just replicate his views on Sri Lanka with regards Israel. What Israel is doing is exactly what Sri Lanka did...
    EdM has to take more of a stance given his religion. He is in a tricky position, one he probably wishes he didn't need to address and under the circumstances, silence wasn't an option and his pronouncement were probably all he could make and were necessary for him.

    Cam can afford to look more like an onlooker (reflecting the UK's position, as others have noted) as he has far fewer Estonians in has cabinet than in years gone by.
    He's an atheist, as is well known.
    I think he would pass the "Hitler" test.
    A racial test rather than a religious one. If your point is that Miliband is obliged to behave in a certain way by his religion, it is factually wrong. If it's that he is obliged to behave in a certain way by his racial origins, it is ludicrous.
    EdM may not self-identify as Jewish but the perception is that that's what he is. So any pronouncement about Israel is fraught with danger.

    This is not a particularly profound observation.

    Judaism race or religion? We really don't have the time and I don't care; as mentioned, Hitler wouldn't have dallied long on the distinction.
    You think if the distinction didn't matter to Hitler it shouldn't matter to us either.

    The distinction between being racially and religiously Jewish is pretty easy for most people, if not for you.
    That's actually quite funny. I will give £10 to a charity of your choice if you can summarise pithily that pretty easy distinction for me.

    In terms that for example SeanT can hang his hat on for future posts.
This discussion has been closed.