politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Predicting the election: What the leading academic teams ar
Comments
-
Is it Ashfield ?bigjohnowls said:Oh dear
Sun Politics @SunPolitics 1m1 minute ago
Lib Dem arrested over child sex allegation http://sunpl.us/6014N3a40 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
If the SNP only got 9 seats that would be horrendous. It also seems tremendously unlikely to me, but then, forecasting such things isn't my business.0 -
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.GIN1138 said:What about Jack's ARSE!
.......................................................
I do however draw great solace from the down thread missive from Rogerdamus calling my ARSE an "embarrassment".
All at PB know confidently knows that my ARSE is cooking with gas.
0 -
Yep, Dan H is spot-on on that. Labour's attempt to rewrite history is breath-takingly cynical.Richard_Nabavi said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
It was Ed's weakness in allowing himself to be pushed into breaking his word, on a matter of international importance, which pushed me from the 'Ed's useless but relatively harmless" camp into the realisation that he will be an unmitigated disaster.
It was a miracle for the country that we kept out of Syria as opposed to what happened over Iraq; to suggest otherwise is lunacy of the highest order. When it comes to weakness I would prefer weakness in the face of MP's, who in their turn are showing weakness in the face of their constituent's wishes, to weakness in the face of a Presidential phone call.
0 -
Yes.Pulpstar said:
Is it Ashfield ?bigjohnowls said:Oh dear
Sun Politics @SunPolitics 1m1 minute ago
Lib Dem arrested over child sex allegation http://sunpl.us/6014N3a40 -
Me and Antifrank will be crying into our beer.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
If the SNP only got 9 seats that would be horrendous. It also seems tremendously unlikely to me, but then, forecasting such things isn't my business.0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, as I said, I'd be substantially surprised.
Going to give the qualifying market a look. If they aren't interesting by this evening I'll just put up a pre-qualifying piece without one.
Edited extra bit: one = a tip.0 -
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...
0 -
But this is the first time since 1945 that the other non-Tory party have been in Govt.JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...0 -
I can't really remember what arguments Ed made, but I remember reading online at the time reports about how sinister some of the rebels were, and how we'd better sticking with Assad as the devil we knew.Danny565 said:
But no one has the guts to say that that's what was being proposed. And Ed certainly didn't oppose the action on the grounds that he thought the rebels were worse than Assad.tlg86 said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Syria is really a lot worse than that. The CIA, with our help, were sending high impact weapons to known Islamist rebels. Really as a big a scandal as Cuba, JFK, Iran Contra, heroin from SE Asia, coke and South America gun running.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mi6-the-cia-and-turkeys-rogue-game-in-syria-9256551.html
On a side not Tosh Plumlee, of Dealey Plaza, has also highlighted the arms smuggling angle that gets ignored. His 11 questions are worth reading.0 -
I can't really remember what arguments Ed made, but I remember reading online at the time reports about how sinister some of the rebels were, and how we'd better sticking with Assad as the devil we knew.Danny565 said:
But no one has the guts to say that that's what was being proposed. And Ed certainly didn't oppose the action on the grounds that he thought the rebels were worse than Assad.tlg86 said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
I'm sure that is the case - but it's a little embarrassing for all concerned to start making a connection between the freedom fighters we were supposed to be feeling sorry for back then and the not so nice fundamentalists who we don't like now.0 -
But ELBOW for the week so far has you on 13.9% (last week you were also on 13.9%).isam said:A measly old 14%
May2015 (@May2015NS)
27/03/2015 14:35
After a few polls dragged them below 13%, Ukip are now back at 14% in the polls (via May2015.com). pic.twitter.com/KWAMupaNIy0 -
No, where you are struggling is that you don't understand that no-one is criticising Miliband for that, nor indeed for voting against the motion. There were perfectly respectable arguments for voting against.Danny565 said:I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.
0 -
What about PC? What about DUP? What about SDLP?FrancisUrquhart said:The 33 different possible coalitions and power sharing deals...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11497669/Every-single-possible-coalition-and-post-election-power-sharing-deal-in-one-chart.html0 -
@PickardJE: SNP to demand a seat on every select committee (including health and education) if it becomes third largest party http://t.co/e6cNCeQfkU0
-
DUP has a decent chance of being extremely relevant.Sunil_Prasannan said:
What about PC? What about DUP? What about SDLP?FrancisUrquhart said:The 33 different possible coalitions and power sharing deals...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11497669/Every-single-possible-coalition-and-post-election-power-sharing-deal-in-one-chart.html
0 -
The weakness Ed showed was not that. It was making a commitment on a cross-party agreement involving possible military action and with international implications, then reneging on it for purely internal party-political reasons, then trying to pretend that he had never made the commitment in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:It was a miracle for the country that we kept out of Syria as opposed to what happened over Iraq; to suggest otherwise is lunacy of the highest order. When it comes to weakness I would prefer weakness in the face of MP's, who in their turn are showing weakness in the face of their constituent's wishes, to weakness in the face of a Presidential phone call.
If he had refused to back the action when the PM asked for his support, that would have been fine; he might even have been right to do so, we'll never know. But that is not what happened.0 -
Mr. Nabavi, quite.0
-
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)0 -
Very sad, unless of course you took the 1/4 about Labour....Pulpstar said:
Is it Ashfield ?bigjohnowls said:Oh dear
Sun Politics @SunPolitics 1m1 minute ago
Lib Dem arrested over child sex allegation http://sunpl.us/6014N3a40 -
With 50 seats wouldn't that happen anyway? Did LDs have seats on select committees before 2010?Scott_P said:@PickardJE: SNP to demand a seat on every select committee (including health and education) if it becomes third largest party http://t.co/e6cNCeQfkU
0 -
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
Didn't the USA use nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Twice?
0 -
Greens to spend 1% of GDP on science. Or about £1.34 after a term of implementing their policies. Maybe 1% spent on learning some basic economics would be a better use of the moolah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-320862040 -
Perhaps, but the point is those are devolved matters. English MPs can't influence policy in Scotland, but the SNP want to do so in England.RobD said:With 50 seats wouldn't that happen anyway? Did LDs have seats on select committees before 2010?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05174470-d474-11e4-8be8-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VbMphj4jThe SNP can also anticipate a jump in state-funded “short money” from £187,000 this year to about £830,000 if it gets 40 seats — or more than £4m over the course of the Parliament.
On top of this, the party wants to take over two rows of the opposition benches closest to the floor of the chamber. Such new privileges would come at the expense of the Lib Dems, senior party figures believe.0 -
As a scientist, I approve. As a PB Tory, I couldn't possibly condone voting Green.Anorak said:Greens to spend 1% of GDP on science. Or about £1.34 after a term of implementing their policies. Maybe 1% spent on learning some basic economics would be a better use of the moolah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-320862040 -
Didn't the USA use nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Twice?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
That's true. In which case bombing schools with chlorine must be ok. Good argument. They should roll out the anthrax too, since Japan has used it in the past.0 -
I don't think they mean 'science' as a scientist would understand the word...RobD said:
As a scientist, I approve. As a PB Tory, I couldn't possibly condone voting Green.Anorak said:Greens to spend 1% of GDP on science. Or about £1.34 after a term of implementing their policies. Maybe 1% spent on learning some basic economics would be a better use of the moolah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-320862040 -
Scott_P said:
Perhaps, but the point is those are devolved matters. English MPs can't influence policy in Scotland, but the SNP want to do so in England.RobD said:With 50 seats wouldn't that happen anyway? Did LDs have seats on select committees before 2010?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05174470-d474-11e4-8be8-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VbMphj4jThe SNP can also anticipate a jump in state-funded “short money” from £187,000 this year to about £830,000 if it gets 40 seats — or more than £4m over the course of the Parliament.
On top of this, the party wants to take over two rows of the opposition benches closest to the floor of the chamber. Such new privileges would come at the expense of the Lib Dems, senior party figures believe.
A very good point. Hadn't considered that these committees would be dealing with England only matters. What's that I hear, the cry of 'consequentials' in the distance? titter...0 -
At 1% of GDP, even this terrible scientist would be given moneyRichard_Nabavi said:
I don't think they mean 'science' as a scientist would understand the word...RobD said:
As a scientist, I approve. As a PB Tory, I couldn't possibly condone voting Green.Anorak said:Greens to spend 1% of GDP on science. Or about £1.34 after a term of implementing their policies. Maybe 1% spent on learning some basic economics would be a better use of the moolah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32086204
0 -
No, that's not a factor that plays a part in his model - and wouldn't do for a statistician like Fisher, since the sample is so small (2!).JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.
0 -
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
No you are right. The comment you are referring to is a disgrace and a total sickening lie.0 -
That's true. In which case bombing schools with chlorine must be ok. Good argument. They should roll out the anthrax too, since Japan has used it in the past.Anorak said:
Didn't the USA use nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Twice?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
I didn't say nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was OK, Anorak!0 -
These have now updated their forecast compared to the table
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
Slight movement to EICIPM.
I am pleased BJESUS is in same camp as 11 of the 12 forecasters in this respect0 -
I'd love to know how they are squaring up Glenrothes at 25% probability for SNP given last night's council by election.
0 -
Mr. Nabavi, quite, although it's worth recalling there's a Conservative moron who thinks astrology should play a role in healthcare. It'd be less worrying if he weren't on the Health Select Committee.0
-
Again, you are correct. The lefty rewriting of history continues. I am not sure its woise of you to remind be what a treacherous swine Miliband is, it does not help my blood pressureRichard_Nabavi said:
The weakness Ed showed was not that. It was making a commitment on a cross-party agreement involving possible military action and with international implications, then reneging on it for purely internal party-political reasons, then trying to pretend that he had never made the commitment in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:It was a miracle for the country that we kept out of Syria as opposed to what happened over Iraq; to suggest otherwise is lunacy of the highest order. When it comes to weakness I would prefer weakness in the face of MP's, who in their turn are showing weakness in the face of their constituent's wishes, to weakness in the face of a Presidential phone call.
If he had refused to back the action when the PM asked for his support, that would have been fine; he might even have been right to do so, we'll never know. But that is not what happened.0 -
Didn't the USA use nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Twice?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
Indeed; and not only did we support them, we helped develop them (Tube Alloys). But the circumstances were radically different (especially when 'we' were firebombing Japanese cities with losses of life far greater than both nuclear devices combined).
We, as a civilisation, should have moved on. The use of chemical weapons makes the abolition of nuclear weapons, and the chances of proliferation of WMD, all the greater.0 -
Labour policy pledge:
Apprenticeships for everyone who wants one
How on earth will they do that?0 -
EICIPM 11JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...
EMWNBPM 10 -
Anyone got any Grexit bets and how confident are they on a payout ?0
-
Mr. Currystar, funded by the same means as the free owls policy?0
-
Mr Dancer, sadly, astrology is officially considered a "science" in India.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nabavi, quite, although it's worth recalling there's a Conservative moron who thinks astrology should play a role in healthcare. It'd be less worrying if he weren't on the Health Select Committee.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Astrology-is-a-science-Bombay-HC/articleshow/7418795.cms
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8303462/Astrology-is-a-science-court-rules.html0 -
Brilliant! Great minds think alikeMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Currystar, funded by the same means as the free owls policy?
0 -
Dr. Prasannan, that's deeply depressing.
Mr. D, indeed... although fools are never far apart 0 -
Since it was mentioned, the picture has to be posted - http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1864716/images/o-OWLS-facebook.jpgMorris_Dancer said:Dr. Prasannan, that's deeply depressing.
Mr. D, indeed... although fools are never far apart 0 -
Will factory owners be jailed if they refuse to take on the apprentices that Ed is going to select and send to them ?0
-
Too many Tweets make a To-wit To-whoo!RobD said:
Since it was mentioned, the picture has to be posted - http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1864716/images/o-OWLS-facebook.jpgMorris_Dancer said:Dr. Prasannan, that's deeply depressing.
Mr. D, indeed... although fools are never far apart0 -
Oh, and since Sunil gets the title, I too am Dr.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Prasannan, that's deeply depressing.
Mr. D, indeed... although fools are never far apart
0 -
A sample of two seems excessive to me. After all there is only one ARSE.NickPalmer said:
No, that's not a factor that plays a part in his model - and wouldn't do for a statistician like Fisher, since the sample is so small (2!).JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.
0 -
ELBOW denier!JackW said:
A sample of two seems excessive to me. After all there is only one ARSE.NickPalmer said:
No, that's not a factor that plays a part in his model - and wouldn't do for a statistician like Fisher, since the sample is so small (2!).JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office. 0 -
Welcome to the PB "Doctors' Club", Dr. D!RobD said:
Oh, and since Sunil gets the title, I too am Dr.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Prasannan, that's deeply depressing.
Mr. D, indeed... although fools are never far apart0 -
On the plus side, taking on a few hundred apprentices will be very handy for healthcare companies which might otherwise be at risk of making a non-Miliband-approved profit.TGOHF said:Will factory owners be jailed if they refuse to take on the apprentices that Ed is going to select and send to them ?
0 -
My problem with Ed over Syria is my recollection of what he was attempting to do, and what he has since tried to give the impression he was attempting to do, do not match up.
I feel like I remember distinctly that the frontbench of Labour were not opposed to action, but they wanted a brief delay, UN approval, that sort of thing. Their amendment to that effect was defeated, but then the government motion was also defeated, at which point Cameron declared that the House clearly wanted no action at all under any circumstances. My recollection was that this took Labour and Labour commentators by surprise, they had not intended to rule action out completely, but since then Ed has tried to give the impression that that was his intention all along.0 -
Indeed but I have Rogeradamus batting against me which trumps all and accordingly with much certainty that I feel compelled to utter my immortal refrain in the non abbreviated form :bigjohnowls said:
EICIPM 11JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...
EMWNBPM 1
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
0 -
I have a bet from 2011 that Greece will be first out of the Euro. I entertain some hopes of collecting on this eventually.TGOHF said:Anyone got any Grexit bets and how confident are they on a payout ?
0 -
Dr. D, new Labour campaign anthem: Owl Be Watching You?
Mr. kle4, quite.0 -
Yes the Scottish % seems absurd... I guess the question should be , who gets the 5% that overcooks Ukip?Sean_F said:
9% for London is about right, I think. 7% for Scotland is far too high (more like 2% IMHO). But neither is compatible with 9% nationwide.isam said:
Thanks for the name check!antifrank said:
I would add in the wildcard that isam keeps noting, which is that polling this time round is not necessarily as reliable as in previous cycles because the pollsters don't know what to make of the kippers (and to a lesser extent the SNP). So while opinion may be slowly setting, we can't be too confident that the pollsters are accurately picking up how it is setting.Richard_Nabavi said:
Fisher of course does provide error bars, currently for example he has:antifrank said:One of the things that we are seeing in this table is the problem of seeing everyone's best guess. This means that the results cluster much more closely than they should. Is it unthinkable that Labour will get fewer than 260 seats or more than 315? Of course it isn't - that's quite a narrow band. Similarly, is it unthinkable that UKIP will get more than five seats? No, of course not.
I expect most of these forecasters would readily acknowledge the possibility of other results.
Probability distributions would be more helpful.
Con: 296 (251– 343 at 95% confidence limits)
So, yes, in general commentators and punters under-estimate the probability of reasonably large shifts from the current position. Of course as the election gets closer polls start to become more and more reliable as predictors. We're pretty close now, so I wouldn't expect big shifts from current polling - however a shift of a few points makes quite a big difference in seats, so the full outcome is quite uncertain.
Overall, it looks like a hung parliament, Con most seats slightly more likely than Lab, Lab Maj out of reach, Con Maj still in reach but unlikely, SNP surge nailed on, LibDems floundering, UKIP around 3.
Basically everyone loses apart from the SNP.
What I find quite mystifying are the Ukip scores in the last three ICM polls
One UK (or GB I don't know the difference!)
One Scotland only
One London only
Ukip got 9%, 7% & 9%
I can't make sense of that.0 -
Didn't the USA use nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Twice?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Because it was not 'siding with ISIS'. You are making the all-too-common mistake of equating the situation we have now with the situation eighteen months ago.JosiasJessop said:
I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could actually be criticising Miliband for choosing NOT to side with ISIS.Danny565 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11499438/Ed-Miliband-is-peddling-a-lie-about-his-volte-face-on-Syria.htmlScott_P said:It was a significant moment, because it was the Syria vote that Miliband himself selected as the best example of his suitability to be Prime Minister of this country.
And it was a lie. A total, and utter misrepresentation of what Ed Miliband did, and did not do, over the Syria vote. He knows it’s a lie, the shadow cabinet know it’s a lie, Labour MPs know it’s a lie.
Miliband's treachery, followed by the collapse of the FSA, allowed the Islamic/ Jihadist rebels to gain extra footholds and extend the war into Iraq (from whence they originally came).
The west should be ashamed of our abandonment of the FSA and the Syrian people, an act that allowed ISIS to gain traction and led to the near-collapse of the Iraqi government.
Still, it's good to know that people on here support the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.
(Cue the deniers...)
Atomic weapons, not nuclear.0 -
Just catching up with two days threads, but Mike's academics are typical in the way of incompleteness and ignoring recent events.
Thus there are only five forecasters who are both complete and current. Taking away the highest and lowest score for each Party, we then get a range of:
Cons: 284-292; LAB: 262-285; LDs: 21-26; UKIP: 1-5; SNP: 40-49, PC: 2-3, and Green: 1-2.
No too far away from what Sporting Index is showing currently on PB.0 -
Roger did accidentally call the Scottish Independence referendum correctly. You have to have both Roger and SO against you to be 100% confident you are right.JackW said:
Indeed but I have Rogeradamus batting against me which trumps allbigjohnowls said:
EICIPM 11JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...
EMWNBPM 10 -
Certainly not.Sunil_Prasannan said:
ELBOW denier!JackW said:
A sample of two seems excessive to me. After all there is only one ARSE.NickPalmer said:
No, that's not a factor that plays a part in his model - and wouldn't do for a statistician like Fisher, since the sample is so small (2!).JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.
More power to your ELBOW.
I have the greatest admiration for your pretty graphs that in their full and colourful grandeur brings much relief to PB lefties who are in much need of solace as Miliband's day of doom looms.
0 -
OT, there's a German based rumour going the rounds that the second-pilot was a recent convert to Islam - anyone know more?0
-
I do think that Labour are being a bit silly with all these rash promises.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the plus side, taking on a few hundred apprentices will be very handy for healthcare companies which might otherwise be at risk of making a non-Miliband-approved profit.TGOHF said:Will factory owners be jailed if they refuse to take on the apprentices that Ed is going to select and send to them ?
0 -
TheWatcher
"Atomic weapons, not nuclear. There is a massive difference between the two. "
Nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, what is this other one?0 -
For UK elections Rogeradamus is the oracle for me. All others pale by comparison.Neil said:
Roger did accidentally call the Scottish Independence referendum correctly. You have to have both Roger and SO against you to be 100% confident you are right.JackW said:
Indeed but I have Rogeradamus batting against me which trumps allbigjohnowls said:
EICIPM 11JackW said:
Possibly the now near ARSE prediction of Fisher is fuelled less by swingback but something more akin to the historical fact that since 1945 the Labour party has never increased its vote share in the first election after losing office.NickPalmer said:Had a look at Fisher's working paper to see where his 2-point Tory bonus comes from. As noted elsewhere, he's given up on swingback. However, he notes that in several recent elections the Tory-Lab difference was typically slightly greater than polls in the final week, especially in 1992 (Major/Kinnock). Caveats: the reverse was true in 2010, and in pre-2010 polling the pollsters used older methods which have been revised.
There's also some evidence that what happened in earlier elections was that the party seen as leading by miles (not the case this time) lost ground towards the end (presumably because people were scared of giving them too much) - that happened in 1997-2005 and in 1983. It's all quite inconclusive - there might be something there, or not...
EMWNBPM 1
0 -
Atomic is exclusively Fission. Yields are lower.Smarmeron said:TheWatcher
"Atomic weapons, not nuclear. There is a massive difference between the two. "
Nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, what is this other one?0 -
Ah ha! And they immediately backtracked. Typical.RobD said:
0 -
As had been said previously, EdM comes up with problems on the spur of the moment but hasn't a clue regarding how to solve them - bit like his energy policy both now and when it was his responsibility.currystar said:
I do think that Labour are being a bit silly with all these rash promises.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the plus side, taking on a few hundred apprentices will be very handy for healthcare companies which might otherwise be at risk of making a non-Miliband-approved profit.TGOHF said:Will factory owners be jailed if they refuse to take on the apprentices that Ed is going to select and send to them ?
Yes we need more apprentices but we have much less large industry who can both afford them and has the critical mass to absorb them. Certainly for many, apprenticeships or home-based sandwich courses would be better and less costly for those who are not so suited to the academic route to further education and employment, and may make better use of their talents and interests.
We have an intern every summer, but it is a huge drain on our small (manpower) resources.0 -
@TheWatcher
Hydrogen bombs are fusion> fission >fusion >fission, etc....depending on the yield and complexity.
They don't seem to be that exclusive?
0 -
Yes. Ed looked thunderstruck when Cameron said the house had made its view clear and that military action was off the table.....kle4 said:My recollection was that this took Labour and Labour commentators by surprise, they had not intended to rule action out completely, but since then Ed has tried to give the impression that that was his intention all along.
0 -
We need more engineers. Not graduates who bugger off into accountancy but actual people who design and make things.Financier said:
As had been said previously, EdM comes up with problems on the spur of the moment but hasn't a clue regarding how to solve them - bit like his energy policy both now and when it was his responsibility.currystar said:
I do think that Labour are being a bit silly with all these rash promises.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the plus side, taking on a few hundred apprentices will be very handy for healthcare companies which might otherwise be at risk of making a non-Miliband-approved profit.TGOHF said:Will factory owners be jailed if they refuse to take on the apprentices that Ed is going to select and send to them ?
Yes we need more apprentices but we have much less large industry who can both afford them and has the critical mass to absorb them. Certainly for many, apprenticeships or home-based sandwich courses would be better and less costly for those who are not so suited to the academic route to further education and employment, and may make better use of their talents and interests.
We have an intern every summer, but it is a huge drain on our small (manpower) resources.0 -
I'd always thought that 'atomic' bomb = fission, 'hydrogen' bomb = fusion, and 'nuclear' bomb referred to all types of weapon that had nuclear material as a core. At least, that's the way I've always used them.Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
Hydrogen bombs are fusion> fission >fusion >fission, etc....depending on the yield and complexity.
They don't seem to be that exclusive?
Just be glad no-one ever built a C-bomb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
For anyone wanting a brilliant read on the development of WMD and nuclear weapons, then 'Doomsday Men' by P.D. Smith is well recommended. Especially as he shows how culture and science fiction was fed by discoveries in nuclear science, and also fed those discoveries.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doomsday-Men-Strangelove-Dream-Superweapon/dp/07139981560 -
@JosiasJessop
There will not be a "pure" fusion bomb for quite a while, unless someone manages to find an aircraft that can carry the magnetic flux generators required. 0 -
JackW said:
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.GIN1138 said:What about Jack's ARSE!
.......................................................
I do however draw great solace from the down thread missive from Rogerdamus calling my ARSE an "embarrassment".
All at PB know confidently knows that my ARSE is cooking with gas.
As I said last week to deaf ears, I think your ARSE should be displayed more prominently once you reveal it. We don't all have the time to go exploring the overgrown forest of mostly overblown Tory posts to try and get a glimpse of it.
And I said the service your ARSE has done for this site over the years, it's triumph with the US elections, it is simply too good a specimen to lie buried from view.
0 -
F1: pre-qualifying thoughts, no tip:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/malaysia-pre-qualifying.html0 -
Seeing as it's quiet around here, the unemployed James May has taken up the recorder...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5_SB1FxAWg&feature=youtu.be&ac0 -
Another Labour policy which spends other people's money for them. Employers.
There would be some vague sense in it if it was for the employers themselves who wanted apprentice places.
But of course this is on top of cutting tuition fees.
0 -
The 9% for UKIP In London seems quite high considering UKIP only got 17% there in the Euros. There are an awful lot of "bad" boroughs for UKIP in London:Sean_F said:
9% for London is about right, I think. 7% for Scotland is far too high (more like 2% IMHO). But neither is compatible with 9% nationwide.isam said:
Thanks for the name check!antifrank said:
I would add in the wildcard that isam keeps noting, which is that polling this time round is not necessarily as reliable as in previous cycles because the pollsters don't know what to make of the kippers (and to a lesser extent the SNP). So while opinion may be slowly setting, we can't be too confident that the pollsters are accurately picking up how it is setting.Richard_Nabavi said:
Fisher of course does provide error bars, currently for example he has:antifrank said:One of the things that we are seeing in this table is the problem of seeing everyone's best guess. This means that the results cluster much more closely than they should. Is it unthinkable that Labour will get fewer than 260 seats or more than 315? Of course it isn't - that's quite a narrow band. Similarly, is it unthinkable that UKIP will get more than five seats? No, of course not.
I expect most of these forecasters would readily acknowledge the possibility of other results.
Probability distributions would be more helpful.
Con: 296 (251– 343 at 95% confidence limits)
So, yes, in general commentators and punters under-estimate the probability of reasonably large shifts from the current position. Of course as the election gets closer polls start to become more and more reliable as predictors. We're pretty close now, so I wouldn't expect big shifts from current polling - however a shift of a few points makes quite a big difference in seats, so the full outcome is quite uncertain.
Overall, it looks like a hung parliament, Con most seats slightly more likely than Lab, Lab Maj out of reach, Con Maj still in reach but unlikely, SNP surge nailed on, LibDems floundering, UKIP around 3.
Basically everyone loses apart from the SNP.
What I find quite mystifying are the Ukip scores in the last three ICM polls
One UK (or GB I don't know the difference!)
One Scotland only
One London only
Ukip got 9%, 7% & 9%
I can't make sense of that.
Too rich - e.g. Westminster, K&C, Richmond
Too right on - e.g. Islington, Camden
Too diverse - Tower Hamlets, Newham, Brent
This suggests UKIP would be getting 20% in some of their few "good" boroughs. The only ones that I can think of are Havering, Bexley, Sutton, Croyden and maybe Enfield and Bromley0 -
Not that I'm a complete expert but most hydrogen bombs, well, Teller-Ulam bombs, are a small amount of fissile material used to ignite a secondary fusion section.
0 -
'Surely Mr Ambassador the whole point of a fusion bomb is lost if it becomes stable.'Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
There will not be a "pure" fusion bomb for quite a while, unless someone manages to find an aircraft that can carry the magnetic flux generators required.
0 -
A very good point. Hadn't considered that these committees would be dealing with England only matters. What's that I hear, the cry of 'consequentials' in the distance? titter...RobD said:Scott_P said:
Perhaps, but the point is those are devolved matters. English MPs can't influence policy in Scotland, but the SNP want to do so in England.RobD said:With 50 seats wouldn't that happen anyway? Did LDs have seats on select committees before 2010?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05174470-d474-11e4-8be8-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VbMphj4jThe SNP can also anticipate a jump in state-funded “short money” from £187,000 this year to about £830,000 if it gets 40 seats — or more than £4m over the course of the Parliament.
On top of this, the party wants to take over two rows of the opposition benches closest to the floor of the chamber. Such new privileges would come at the expense of the Lib Dems, senior party figures believe.
There are issues which are common to all the UK countries, notably over finance (indeed) but also practical ones. The devil will be in the detail.
0 -
@BannedInParis
They managed to get to be ridiculously complicated resulting in them becoming massively powerful, but practically useless
@Flightpath
You could switch off the containment after fusion had initiated, but it is easier to use sequenced fission bombs to create it instead.0 -
The not the debate was a disaster for Cameron.His sweat mixed in with the make-up powder made him look Betty Grabel having mud treatment.He scored very badly for complacency and casual arrogance.0
-
By not being in government?currystar said:Labour policy pledge:
Apprenticeships for everyone who wants one
How on earth will they do that?
By making them really unpleasant?
By offering them in really pointless things as a way of making up the numbers?
Loads of ways.
0 -
He won. It's a disaster.volcanopete said:The not the debate was a disaster for Cameron.
0 -
Your wisdom is only exceeded by your erudition.tyson said:JackW said:
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.GIN1138 said:What about Jack's ARSE!
.......................................................
I do however draw great solace from the down thread missive from Rogerdamus calling my ARSE an "embarrassment".
All at PB know confidently knows that my ARSE is cooking with gas.
As I said last week to deaf ears, I think your ARSE should be displayed more prominently once you reveal it. We don't all have the time to go exploring the overgrown forest of mostly overblown Tory posts to try and get a glimpse of it.
And I said the service your ARSE has done for this site over the years, it's triumph with the US elections, it is simply too good a specimen to lie buried from view.
Mindful of your contribution let me outline to the uninitiated that presently my ARSE comes out in the full gaze of OGH's mighty organ on Tuesday and Saturday morning at 9:00am precisely.
Further I have been persuaded that an eve of poll Super ARSE should also be provided for the fullest examination of the PB cognoscenti and this innovation will be published at 10:00pm on the 6th May.
Some say this may lead to my ARSE becoming over exposed but I am persuaded that such a rare extra visitation will not adversely effect its regular performance as the greatest election predictor in the history of mankind.
0 -
I wonder if the six people who watched it agree with you ?volcanopete said:The not the debate was a disaster for Cameron.His sweat mixed in with the make-up powder made him look Betty Grabel having mud treatment.He scored very badly for complacency and casual arrogance.
meanwhile in planet UK a nation awaits Zayn's big decision.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3014228/Zayn-Malik-confirms-embark-solo-career-leaving-One-Direction-normal-22-year-old-spotlight.html
0 -
Off topic
I wonder if anyone else has experienced the recent dubious trick pulled by Royal Mail which I have noticed both in London and Yorkshire whereby instead of the last local weekday collection being at around 5.00pm - 5.30pm, with a Saturday collection at 12.00 noon, the last weekday collection is now at 9.00 am with the Saturday collection at 7.00am would you believe!
It occurs to me that Royal Mail has, by pulling this cunning stunt, effectively scrapped First Class Mail at a stroke without the embarrassment of having to admit doing so and without any reduction in their charges to take account of this considerably inferior standard of service, quite the opposite in fact, with postal rates about to be increased still further.
Surprisingly, I have seen absolutely no mention of these changes in the media - how in God's name have they succeeded in getting them past the regulator, seemingly without any resistance?0 -
Any support for the idea that we just assume everyone knows only the political obsessives obsess over politics, and don't need to point it out for each new political event.0
-
Scott_P said:
Perhaps, but the point is those are devolved matters. English MPs can't influence policy in Scotland, but the SNP want to do so in England.RobD said:With 50 seats wouldn't that happen anyway? Did LDs have seats on select committees before 2010?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05174470-d474-11e4-8be8-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VbMphj4jThe SNP can also anticipate a jump in state-funded “short money” from £187,000 this year to about £830,000 if it gets 40 seats — or more than £4m over the course of the Parliament.
On top of this, the party wants to take over two rows of the opposition benches closest to the floor of the chamber. Such new privileges would come at the expense of the Lib Dems, senior party figures believe.
Devolved my erse, they are UK matters you half witted dunderheid0 -
easy guessisam said:
Yes the Scottish % seems absurd... I guess the question should be , who gets the 5% that overcooks Ukip?Sean_F said:
9% for London is about right, I think. 7% for Scotland is far too high (more like 2% IMHO). But neither is compatible with 9% nationwide.isam said:
Thanks for the name check!antifrank said:
I would add in the wildcard that isam keeps noting, which is that polling this time round is not necessarily as reliable as in previous cycles because the pollsters don't know what to make of the kippers (and to a lesser extent the SNP). So while opinion may be slowly setting, we can't be too confident that the pollsters are accurately picking up how it is setting.Richard_Nabavi said:
Fisher of course does provide error bars, currently for example he has:antifrank said:One of the things that we are seeing in this table is the problem of seeing everyone's best guess. This means that the results cluster much more closely than they should. Is it unthinkable that Labour will get fewer than 260 seats or more than 315? Of course it isn't - that's quite a narrow band. Similarly, is it unthinkable that UKIP will get more than five seats? No, of course not.
I expect most of these forecasters would readily acknowledge the possibility of other results.
Probability distributions would be more helpful.
Con: 296 (251– 343 at 95% confidence limits)
So, yes, in general commentators and punters under-estimate the probability of reasonably large shifts from the current position. Of course as the election gets closer polls start to become more and more reliable as predictors. We're pretty close now, so I wouldn't expect big shifts from current polling - however a shift of a few points makes quite a big difference in seats, so the full outcome is quite uncertain.
Overall, it looks like a hung parliament, Con most seats slightly more likely than Lab, Lab Maj out of reach, Con Maj still in reach but unlikely, SNP surge nailed on, LibDems floundering, UKIP around 3.
Basically everyone loses apart from the SNP.
What I find quite mystifying are the Ukip scores in the last three ICM polls
One UK (or GB I don't know the difference!)
One Scotland only
One London only
Ukip got 9%, 7% & 9%
I can't make sense of that.0 -
And yet, in all its many reports on last night’s ‘debate’ the BBC failed to make any mention of the Guardian ICM poll showing 54% - 46% in Cameron’s favour. – says it all really.Scott_P said:
He won. It's a disaster.volcanopete said:The not the debate was a disaster for Cameron.
0 -
-
If you look at the stats for delivery time for 2nd and 1st class mail, they are very similar (and I've been told that the letters are just dumped into the system without being segregated).peter_from_putney said:Off topic
I wonder if anyone else has experienced the recent dubious trick pulled by Royal Mail which I have noticed both in London and Yorkshire whereby instead of the last local weekday collection being at around 5.00pm - 5.30pm, with a Saturday collection at 12.00 noon, the last weekday collection is now at 9.00 am with the Saturday collection at 7.00am would you believe!
It occurs to me that Royal Mail has, by pulling this cunning stunt, effectively scrapped First Class Mail at a stroke without the embarrassment of having to admit doing so and without any reduction in their charges to take account of this considerably inferior standard of service, quite the opposite in fact, with postal rates about to be increased still further.
Surprisingly, I have seen absolutely no mention of these changes in the media - how in God's name have they succeeded in getting them past the regulator, seemingly without any resistance?
As a result, I now use 2nd class stamps unless I think the person receiving it will think I'm being cheap (and I care whether they think that!)0
