politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 polling fail put down to “unrepresentative sampl

SystemSystem Posts: 12,114
edited January 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 polling fail put down to “unrepresentative samples”

A new report just published today by NatCen Social Research and authored by leading psephologist, Prof John Curtice, suggests that the polls called the General Election wrong primarily because the samples of people they polled were not adequately representative of the country as a whole.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    Interesting
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,145
    Time for YG/ICM/CR to rethink, methinks :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    Ratty with a red rosette? BOOOO!!!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Getting a representative sample is the foundation of any accurate opinion poll, but this is becoming steadily harder to achieve. If those willing to engage with pollsters are not particularly representative of the public, the pollsters are going to need to make ever-greater adjustments to the raw data or to encourage others to engage more. Neither approach sounds very alluring.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    FPT @Rottenborough. No, 6-1 is still a good bet for Rubio:

    You can lay it off on Betfair and double your stake money.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    edited January 2016
    I wonder if there really is something in the notion that disproportionately, Tories just want to get on with their lives, on their terms - and so Twitter/Facebook/intrusive salesmen/pollsters can all just feck right off....?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Tory voters working hard and playing hard so never at home to be contacted...

    Labour voters on the other hand....

    Although how much of this uncontactability is due to older voters not wanting to answer the phone to telemarketers. It would be good to see this sampling difference broken down by age / social class as well.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    edited January 2016
    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    MarqueeMark said:

    Ratty with a red rosette? BOOOO!!!

    It's OK, he'll know a sinking ship when he sees one.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    TheScreamingEagles said:


    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls

    Do you have a link to this data? Ta....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Very useful article.

    It doesn't look like Mike's writing style - do we have a mystery guest author?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    Curse of the thread: On POTUS -- Just chucked a couple of quid at John Kerry at 550/1. If Clinton does fall he might be suddenly in play. I still think the legal email server troubles will be massaged away in some manner however and so most of my 2016 betting is on the GOP side.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.

    "You've said you'll vote Labour."

    "Do you actually mean that you're going to get off your backside, take the bus down to the polling booth and put an X in the box for PM Jeremy Corbyn. Or are you just virtue signalling ?"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:


    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls

    Do you have a link to this data? Ta....
    Re Labour here http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/late-swing-labours-private-polls-showed-tories-ahead-christmas

    Re The Tories, you'll need to buy the book "Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election" by Tim Ross, it is said there.

    You can buy it on kindle for £5.39 and I've the read book and is an informative read

    http://tinyurl.com/SirLyntonRocks
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    Excellent article. The pollsters have got some serious thinking to do.

    However, it doesn't answer why this time (GE 2015) the slightly 'non-random' method of polling didn't work?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:


    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls

    Do you have a link to this data? Ta....
    Re Labour here http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/late-swing-labours-private-polls-showed-tories-ahead-christmas

    Re The Tories, you'll need to buy the book "Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election" by Tim Ross, it is said there.

    You can buy it on kindle for £5.39 and I've the read book and is an informative read

    http://tinyurl.com/SirLyntonRocks
    Thankee kindly....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    JonathanD said:

    Tory voters working hard and playing hard so never at home to be contacted...

    Labour voters on the other hand....

    Although how much of this uncontactability is due to older voters not wanting to answer the phone to telemarketers. It would be good to see this sampling difference broken down by age / social class as well.

    Well they wouldn't reach me (not retired, at home working a lot) - I never answer the landline during the day unless it is my family on the caller id. It is 99% of the time bloody PPI.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited January 2016
    It seems to me at least, that the identified problems and recommended changes are little more than what one would have been expected as the basics to be done before compiling and publishing a poll.

    The electorate are the same as those in 2010 give or take , it was the pollster that changed their methods - and YouGov frequently,
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    edited January 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.

    "You've said you'll vote Labour."

    "Do you actually mean that you're going to get off your backside, take the bus down to the polling booth and put an X in the box for PM Jeremy Corbyn. Or are you just virtue signalling ?"
    Q1) Jeremy Corbyn said the Death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Q2) Jeremy Corbyn refused to sing God Save The Queen, do you think he is a patriot, yes or no?

    Q3) Jeremy Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor, McDonnell has said in the past he wants to honour the IRA for their bombing campaign, do you support or oppose this?

    Q4) Who will you vote for in the general election? The Tories, The Jeremy Corbyn's led Labour party or someone else?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    Won't anyone think of Basil?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Sad news about Alan Rickman. A wonderful actor. I saw him years ago on the Barbican stage in Les Liaisons Dangereuses and he was mesmerising.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Rod Liddle on Shami http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/farewell-shami-chakrabarti-leading-figure-of-the-new-establishment/
    That’s because, with her bien-pensant views, she has become a leading figure of the New Establishment, the people who run everything. In my book I had a section on ‘Eight Degrees of Shami Chakrabarti’ – you can get from every quango, charity, government body to Shami in actually two moves, rather than eight. And the same names keep cropping up all the time. All with the same views.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    A little awkward for Ted Cruz:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html?_r=0
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    Cyclefree said:

    Sad news about Alan Rickman. A wonderful actor. I saw him years ago on the Barbican stage in Les Liaisons Dangereuses and he was mesmerising.

    I feel so embarrassed, I forgot to mention Alan RIckman's finest performance on the last thread.

    The Metatron in Dogma
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    Pulpstar said:

    FPT @Rottenborough. No, 6-1 is still a good bet for Rubio:

    You can lay it off on Betfair and double your stake money.

    Thankee
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Getting a representative sample is the foundation of any accurate opinion poll, but this is becoming steadily harder to achieve. If those willing to engage with pollsters are not particularly representative of the public, the pollsters are going to need to make ever-greater adjustments to the raw data or to encourage others to engage more. Neither approach sounds very alluring.

    The other problem is that polls are necessarily always fighting the last war. What if turnout behaviour differs in 2020, for some reason that we can't now foresee? Something that stirs up young people or depresses pensioners or...?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.

    "You've said you'll vote Labour."

    "Do you actually mean that you're going to get off your backside, take the bus down to the polling booth and put an X in the box for PM Jeremy Corbyn. Or are you just virtue signalling ?"
    Q1) Jeremy Corbyn said the Death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Q2) Jeremy Corbyn refused to sing God Save The Queen, do you think he is a patriot, yes or no?

    Q3) Jeremy Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor, McDonnell has said in the past he wants to honour the IRA for their bombing campaign, do you support or oppose this?

    Q4) Who will you vote for in the general election? The Tories, The Jeremy Corbyn's led Labour party or someone else?
    TSE - Have you ever thought of working for Saatchi & Saatchi?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited January 2016
    Note: This post was based on a summary of the report issued by the centre

    The cartoon was from Marf that was first published on PB the day after GE2015
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Lolz

    #wtf? >RT @guardian: How to watch Netflix as a feminist https://t.co/5dGIJS1FAQ
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    peter_from_putney said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.

    "You've said you'll vote Labour."

    "Do you actually mean that you're going to get off your backside, take the bus down to the polling booth and put an X in the box for PM Jeremy Corbyn. Or are you just virtue signalling ?"
    Q1) Jeremy Corbyn said the Death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Q2) Jeremy Corbyn refused to sing God Save The Queen, do you think he is a patriot, yes or no?

    Q3) Jeremy Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor, McDonnell has said in the past he wants to honour the IRA for their bombing campaign, do you support or oppose this?

    Q4) Who will you vote for in the general election? The Tories, The Jeremy Corbyn's led Labour party or someone else?
    TSE - Have you ever thought of working for Saatchi & Saatchi?
    They couldn't afford me.

    I will work pro bono for the Tory party though.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    NickPalmer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Getting a representative sample is the foundation of any accurate opinion poll, but this is becoming steadily harder to achieve. If those willing to engage with pollsters are not particularly representative of the public, the pollsters are going to need to make ever-greater adjustments to the raw data or to encourage others to engage more. Neither approach sounds very alluring.

    The other problem is that polls are necessarily always fighting the last war. What if turnout behaviour differs in 2020, for some reason that we can't now foresee? Something that stirs up young people or depresses pensioners or...?
    Indeed. In the US, pollsters already correct the raw figures for likelihood to vote. But there are always a lot of potential errors in that guestimate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    Ouchies

    @stephenkb: People who people trust Corbyn to keep them safer than: Putin, Blair. People who they trust more: Cameron, Osborne: http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/corbyn-no-trusted-blair-keep-britain-safe/ …
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sad news about Alan Rickman. A wonderful actor. I saw him years ago on the Barbican stage in Les Liaisons Dangereuses and he was mesmerising.

    I feel so embarrassed, I forgot to mention Alan RIckman's finest performance on the last thread.

    The Metatron in Dogma
    Not the deliciously evil Sheriff of Nottingham?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    Anything we don't know. Or, indeed, many PBers could have told them in April?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732
    rottenborough said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    Anything we don't know. Or, indeed, many PBers could have told them in April?
    Any inquiry into the "ground game"?.... titters :D
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Jezza is obviously the answer...
    rottenborough said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    Anything we don't know. Or, indeed, many PBers could have told them in April?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    BREAKING - Indonesian television reporting that fresh explosions have been heard in central #Jakarta - Reuters
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    Coe's surely got to go. A sad end to a good career?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/687641478005407744
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Michael Crick
    BSA/Curtice say errors occur if pollsters give up on randomly picked voters after one rejection. Ideally, they should try 6+ times
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I think something else that has been overlooked.

    We know the ICM call centre did the private polling for Labour, and I believe that Populus did the fieldwork for the private polling that Crosby Textor did for the Tories.

    Now these private polls were much more accurate than the published polls, the published polls were impeccably neutral, whereas the private polling was a bit more loaded and asked the VI question AFTER the supplementaries.

    Perhaps the polls need to be less neutral and a bit more reflective that we're in a quasi-Presidential system.

    "You've said you'll vote Labour."

    "Do you actually mean that you're going to get off your backside, take the bus down to the polling booth and put an X in the box for PM Jeremy Corbyn. Or are you just virtue signalling ?"
    Q1) Jeremy Corbyn said the Death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Q2) Jeremy Corbyn refused to sing God Save The Queen, do you think he is a patriot, yes or no?

    Q3) Jeremy Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor, McDonnell has said in the past he wants to honour the IRA for their bombing campaign, do you support or oppose this?

    Q4) Who will you vote for in the general election? The Tories, The Jeremy Corbyn's led Labour party or someone else?
    TSE - Have you ever thought of working for Saatchi & Saatchi?
    They couldn't afford me.

    I will work pro bono for the Tory party though.
    Speaking of Saatchi & Saatchi, I've just been enjoying Lord (Tim) Bell's Right or Wrong, describing in detail his part and that of others during the Thatcher years and in particular her three GE triumphs, as well as her ultimate fall from power ..... a thumping good read, although understandably less so for those of a pink/red hue.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068
    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    ELBOW - Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week, week-ending 18th January.....
    ...2015!

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/556882506084282368
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    edited January 2016
    Tim_B said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sad news about Alan Rickman. A wonderful actor. I saw him years ago on the Barbican stage in Les Liaisons Dangereuses and he was mesmerising.

    I feel so embarrassed, I forgot to mention Alan RIckman's finest performance on the last thread.

    The Metatron in Dogma
    Not the deliciously evil Sheriff of Nottingham?
    Hans Gruber in Die Hard
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.
    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    NickPalmer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Getting a representative sample is the foundation of any accurate opinion poll, but this is becoming steadily harder to achieve. If those willing to engage with pollsters are not particularly representative of the public, the pollsters are going to need to make ever-greater adjustments to the raw data or to encourage others to engage more. Neither approach sounds very alluring.

    The other problem is that polls are necessarily always fighting the last war. What if turnout behaviour differs in 2020, for some reason that we can't now foresee? Something that stirs up young people or depresses pensioners or...?
    There are two separate issues, perhaps. One is the underlying propensity of an age cohort to vote (which might be a phenomenon that varies only slowly over time); the other is the tendency for groups of people to get more or less stirred up by some policy or event. That might be expected to change from election to election.

    One concern for Labour should be that young people *were* stirred up at the last election (well, supposedly) by tuition fees. Also, it's not clear how far the Opposition can stir anyone up at all.

    Anyway, this is taking me back to being an undergraduate and writing about the reasons for the 1906 landslide, about which I was greatly tempted to say "Who the f*ck knows?"
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    The polls were wrong because the Labour /Lib voters told the pollsters they were voting for their respective Parties out of party loyalty ; but when they got into the privacy of the voting booth said........

    ''Bugger this ! I'm not going to take the risk of a weak L P, led by that dam fool Miliband , being jacked out and held to ransom by an odious national party from Scotland led by Lady Mcbeth ! ''

    That's what happened ...there were simply not enough gormless voters in middle England

    I confidently predicted a Tory Majority for over 3 months because I knew , intuitively , that folks in England would never allow a government to be hanged by a Scottish rope ....I also won a significant amount of money off my bet !

    Some fool in London bet £200, 000 on a so called ''Hung Parliament '' ; yes , a sure thing , 3 months before the election ...a week is a long time in politics but apparently 3 months is not !
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.

    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

    Exit polls are very different beasts.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    ...... where it's 1.1 decimal (or 1/10) red hot favourite to win the Oscar!
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    JosiasJessop said:

    Coe's surely got to go. A sad end to a good career?

    But just in time to be drafted in to replace Zac!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sean_F said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
    Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:

    "I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,169
    Run out!!! 212-6
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Sean_F said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
    Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:

    "I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
    If we have a crash (and I believe we will be in recession at some point in the next two or three years) there is no way it can be blamed on Labour this time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.

    If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 651
    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.

    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

    Exit polls are very different beasts.
    Indeed they are but I'm assuming the pollsters did not go back half a dozen times to anyone who declined to answer.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    rottenborough said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Sean_F said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
    Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:

    "I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
    If we have a crash (and I believe we will be in recession at some point in the next two or three years) there is no way it can be blamed on Labour this time.
    Oh I agree with that. It's the assumption that "politicians were let off for the most part" last time round. As this report indicates, they really weren't.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    Wanderer said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Coe's surely got to go. A sad end to a good career?

    But just in time to be drafted in to replace Zac!
    I don't understand this:
    The report also claimed that the IAAF Council, which included Coe, "could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics".

    Yet Pound insisted Coe, a former British MP, was the right man to lead the IAAF out of its current mess.
    It the IAAF council could not have been unaware, and Coe was on the council, then how on Earth can he take the IAAF forwards?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35309759
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    rottenborough said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Sean_F said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
    Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:

    "I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
    If we have a crash (and I believe we will be in recession at some point in the next two or three years) there is no way it can be blamed on Labour this time.
    A recession is one thing, a crash another. Imo the political fallout from a moderate downturn won't be spectacular. Another full-on systemic crisis is another matter.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,656
    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron
    4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    As long as Labour keep deluding themselves that (1) is a myth - or more accurately, that the government of the day's failure to prepare adequately for the fallout from the crash is a myth - they have no chance of being trusted on the economy. See Miliband in Leeds for details.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    rottenborough said:

    Curse of the thread: On POTUS -- Just chucked a couple of quid at John Kerry at 550/1. If Clinton does fall he might be suddenly in play. I still think the legal email server troubles will be massaged away in some manner however and so most of my 2016 betting is on the GOP side.

    Kerry would give ISIS, Saudia and Iran everything they would ask for and more. A man willing to be fooled and crushed. He would be an absolute disaster for America and the West.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    edited January 2016
    Off topic: Returns for investment classes from early 90s onward:

    http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg190/Pulpstar/assets.jpg

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.

    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

    Exit polls are very different beasts.
    Indeed they are but I'm assuming the pollsters did not go back half a dozen times to anyone who declined to answer.
    But they probably don't need to, because of the nature of exit polls.

    IANAE, but surely it removes several potential biases:

    *) They can be almost certain that the people leaving the polling station have voted.
    *) Before elections, people might be unsure how they are going to vote. After leaving the polling station, they know how they voted.
    *) They are face-to-face interviews, not Internet or phone polls.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    edited January 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.

    If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
    I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.

    Off the top of my head:

    Deadpool
    Cap America 3
    Batman Vs Superman
    X-Men Apocalpse (sp)
    Suicide Squad
    Dr Strange

    as all comic book movies.

    Then add to that
    Independence Day2
    Star Wars:Rogue
    TMNT 2

    plus probably others.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    edited January 2016
    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    The Revenant is a great film. The scandal is that it's not listed for Bafta VFX.
    It left me colder than the scenery....

    EDIT: and the reason it didn't make BAFTA VFX is that the director went to very great lengths to publicly eschew VFX. That, and many BAFTA voters didn't get past 10 minutes in before they went to the next screener, I understand from a well connected source on the judging panel!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    Force Awakens nominated for 5 "technical" Oscars:

    Sound Editing
    Sound Mixing
    Editing
    SFX
    Original Score.

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016
    david_herdson said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron
    4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    As long as Labour keep deluding themselves that (1) is a myth - or more accurately, that the government of the day's failure to prepare adequately for the fallout from the crash is a myth - they have no chance of being trusted on the economy. See Miliband in Leeds for details.
    I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,656
    JosiasJessop said:

    Coe's surely got to go. A sad end to a good career?

    Coe has seriously underwhelmed since his election. He has spouted far too much of an insider's line throughout - and we now know how bad the inside of the IAAF was. Is he the man to shake things up and sort them out? Little evidence of it so far.
  • Bob_JonesBob_Jones Posts: 2
    Thank you Rattus Marfus, I almost feel sorry for the psephologists - only almost.
    A pity about the red rosette though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Dr. Prasannan, snobbishness? I wonder what other very successful film has had so few nominations (only got a few BAFTA nominations too).

    Not saying it's a classic film, though I did like it, but I thought Titanic was bloody tedious, and that got oodles of shiny statues.

    Sad to hear of Alan Rickman's death. He was an excellent villain in both Die Hard, the greatest Christmas film ever made, and Prince of Thieves.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    Key question here is are the polling companies correcting for this already. I'm specially thinking about the discrepancy between online polls and phone polls for EuroRef. Are one or other including the missing Tories?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    Slackbladder said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.

    If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
    I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.

    Off the top of my head:

    Deadpool
    Cap America 3
    Batman Vs Superman
    X-Men Apocalpse (sp)
    Suicide Squad
    Dr Strange

    as all comic book movies.

    Then add to that
    Independence Day2
    Star Wars:Rogue
    TMNT 2

    plus probably others.
    I read in Empire last month the average cost of a cinema ticket now is £10, 3D films push it close to £12 and IMAX/4DX pushes it close to £18.

    Now if you want a family trip to the cinema you can be looking at something between £40 to £75 for tickets alone, before you get the drinks and food at the cinema.

    You can get Sky Movies and Sport for around £40 a month, netflix for £8.99 and you can see why some people might prefer to stay at home.

    No wonder couples might prefer to stay home and netflix and chill
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    LucyJones said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
    Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Wanderer said:

    I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.

    Yes, precisely. Labour keep repeating the moan that they 'weren't responsible for the global crash', and they genuinely seem to think, or at least to have convinced themselves when they talk to each other, that they get the blame for this because of some evil Tory twisting of the facts. In reality, no-one has ever suggested that they were to blame for the global crash, it's a complete red herring.

    If anything, they escaped very lightly: they actually were to blame for the ludicrous structure of financial regulation which Brown put in place, and which made the UK fallout from the crash much worse than it needed to have been. They don't get blamed enough for that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    MTimT said:

    LucyJones said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
    Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
    Some people just have no soul....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    edited January 2016
    MarqueeMark said:

    MTimT said:

    LucyJones said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
    Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
    Some people just have no soul....
    I'm seeing The Revenant tonight, what should I expect?
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.

    Yes, precisely. Labour keep repeating the moan that they 'weren't responsible for the global crash', and they genuinely seem to think, or at least to have convinced themselves when they talk to each other, that they get the blame for this because of some evil Tory twisting of the facts. In reality, no-one has ever suggested that they were to blame for the global crash, it's a complete red herring.

    If anything, they escaped very lightly: they actually were to blame for the ludicrous structure of financial regulation which Brown put in place, and which made the UK fallout from the crash much worse than it needed to have been. They don't get blamed enough for that.
    I think it goes one further - every time they argue and 'explain' that they weren't responsible, all its doing is reinforcing the view that they can't face up to their responsibilities in the area.

    Ah well.

  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think this is a rare case of people underestimating the public, or at least a sizeable part of it. It's understood that Labour didn't cause a global crisis. However the idea that Labour didn't prepare well to weather it is widely accepted.

    Yes, precisely. Labour keep repeating the moan that they 'weren't responsible for the global crash', and they genuinely seem to think, or at least to have convinced themselves when they talk to each other, that they get the blame for this because of some evil Tory twisting of the facts. In reality, no-one has ever suggested that they were to blame for the global crash, it's a complete red herring.

    If anything, they escaped very lightly: they actually were to blame for the ludicrous structure of financial regulation which Brown put in place, and which made the UK fallout from the crash much worse than it needed to have been. They don't get blamed enough for that.
    Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.

    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

    Exit polls are very different beasts.
    Indeed they are but I'm assuming the pollsters did not go back half a dozen times to anyone who declined to answer.
    But they probably don't need to, because of the nature of exit polls.

    IANAE, but surely it removes several potential biases:

    *) They can be almost certain that the people leaving the polling station have voted.
    *) Before elections, people might be unsure how they are going to vote. After leaving the polling station, they know how they voted.
    *) They are face-to-face interviews, not Internet or phone polls.
    Granted, but what happened to reluctance to answer? That's the problem.

    Look, I've been saying for years on here the problem is poor sampling, so I'm in broad agreement with the report, but am not convinced by Crick's summary. Otoh, I've not actually read the full report. Of course, the exit polls do not have the other problem the full report identified of over-sampling non-voters, but that is a different issue.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    For causing the crash, I mean.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JosiasJessop said:

    Wanderer said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Coe's surely got to go. A sad end to a good career?

    But just in time to be drafted in to replace Zac!
    I don't understand this:
    The report also claimed that the IAAF Council, which included Coe, "could not have been unaware of the extent of doping in athletics".

    Yet Pound insisted Coe, a former British MP, was the right man to lead the IAAF out of its current mess.
    It the IAAF council could not have been unaware, and Coe was on the council, then how on Earth can he take the IAAF forwards?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35309759


    If he was very active trying to address the situation within the IAAF, but respected the confidentiality of internal deliberations when he failed, he might have some claim to be the man. But even in that case, it would mean:

    1. that he did not speak out publicly so was not sufficiently passionate about tackling the issue to be the man
    2. he did not carry the day, so does not have the persuasive powers to be the man.

    It all hangs on whether the Council in general and he in particular was aware or not.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Slackbladder said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    watford30 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Which is why it's made it to the shortlist for Animated Feature.
    It is also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

    A very underwhelming year of cinema, in my opinion. The Revenant gets 12 nominations, but really needed 30 minutes editing out just to stop it being deathly dull.

    I wonder if we are just starting to see the rise of box-set TV really hurting the cinema?
    I think you're right, I also think Comic Book films are having an effect on the cinema, and I say that as someone who loves my Comic Book films.

    If you don't have a Cineworld card, you have to pick and choose your films, which knocks on to people attending.
    I think thats a good point. This year there's 5 or 6 big comic books movies, then various franchise/sequel movies which makes it difficult for anything original to really shine.

    Off the top of my head:

    Deadpool
    Cap America 3
    Batman Vs Superman
    X-Men Apocalpse (sp)
    Suicide Squad
    Dr Strange

    as all comic book movies.

    Then add to that
    Independence Day2
    Star Wars:Rogue
    TMNT 2

    plus probably others.
    I read in Empire last month the average cost of a cinema ticket now is £10, 3D films push it close to £12 and IMAX/4DX pushes it close to £18.

    Now if you want a family trip to the cinema you can be looking at something between £40 to £75 for tickets alone, before you get the drinks and food at the cinema.

    You can get Sky Movies and Sport for around £40 a month, netflix for £8.99 and you can see why some people might prefer to stay at home.

    No wonder couples might prefer to stay home and netflix and chill
    I always buy come crisps/pop at the shops on the way to the Cinema.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited January 2016
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    Tis true the thrust of your argument, but several Tory ministers have said outright its Labour what was to blame [for the crash].

    I don't think so. Do you have an example?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?

    On the other side, Ryan is similarly cheap for the brokered convention possibility.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I enjoyed Inside Out (I saw it on a long flight too). There were some pretty neat examples of panto lines for the grown-ups in the audience - one about bears in San Francisco springs to mind.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    MarqueeMark said:

    MTimT said:

    LucyJones said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
    Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
    Some people just have no soul....
    Maybe - but I have too many animals so I doubt that is a correct diagnosis. More like every scene was telegraphed so obviously it was cringeworthy when it came to pass.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,160
    Tissue_Price said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?

    On the other side, Ryan is similarly cheap for the brokered convention possibility.
    Gore?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,188
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OK, I've covered Biden, Kerry and Warren for a profit of between £2K and nearly £9K in the event of a Hillary withdrawal, at a total cost of £19. Anyone else I need to buy insurance on?

    Al Gore.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,139
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not sure that is an accurate summary, or true. Remember the exit polls got it right.

    Plato_Says said:

    Crick - BSA/Curtice: There's small pro-Labour bias among voters who answer pollsters 1st time. Only balanced by voters who answer 2nd, 3rd time etc

    Exit polls are very different beasts.
    Indeed they are but I'm assuming the pollsters did not go back half a dozen times to anyone who declined to answer.
    But they probably don't need to, because of the nature of exit polls.

    IANAE, but surely it removes several potential biases:

    *) They can be almost certain that the people leaving the polling station have voted.
    *) Before elections, people might be unsure how they are going to vote. After leaving the polling station, they know how they voted.
    *) They are face-to-face interviews, not Internet or phone polls.
    Granted, but what happened to reluctance to answer? That's the problem.

    Look, I've been saying for years on here the problem is poor sampling, so I'm in broad agreement with the report, but am not convinced by Crick's summary. Otoh, I've not actually read the full report. Of course, the exit polls do not have the other problem the full report identified of over-sampling non-voters, but that is a different issue.
    I'd argue people would treat face-to-face questioners outside a polling station very differently to phone and Internet pollsters. Though I might be wrong.

    ISTR reading a very good article about the way exit polls are undertaken. It was sometime around the election, and I think it went into these sorts of matters. I wonder if anyone has a link; I think it was on here?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Sean_F said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Beckett report

    BBCLauraK
    "1. Failure to shake off the myth that we (ie Labour) were responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust in the economy"

    "2. inability to deal with issues of 'connection' in particular failure to communicate on benefits and immigration "

    "3. Ed Miliband was judged not be as string a leader as David Cameron 4. Fear of the SNP propping up a minority Labour government"...

    No shit, Sherlock.
    Labour supporters don't believe point 1. On a different forum yesterday, a (relatively sane) Labour supporter posed the following question:

    "I've been thinking a bit about this the past 2 days, who gets the blame for the next crash - assuming there's one say this year/next. Obviously last time the bankers took a large amount of the vilification and politicians were let off for the most part. Will they be blamed this time? Or will another scapegoat be found?"
    Xi Jin Ping
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Thanks. Done: £2 on Gore at 1000.0.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,207
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    MTimT said:

    LucyJones said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    For those asking about SeanT on the last thread, he's alive and kicking on twitter under the soubriquet @thomasknox . He's currently outraged that Inside Out wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

    And he's right to be. 90 minutes of extraordinary cinema.
    Extraordinarily tedious, over-sentimental and predictable, in my opinion. Fell asleep for part of it. My 9-year-old thought it was "okay" and my 14-year-old disliked it. I certainly don't know of any children who actively talk about it the way they did with, say, "Frozen" or "Despicable Me".

    (By way of comparison, my children both enjoyed "The Martian", as did I.)
    Couldn't watch beyond 15 minutes - even on a 15-hour flight. Decided to read a book on safety in the nuclear power industry instead. That's how dull it was.
    Some people just have no soul....
    I'm seeing The Revenant tonight, what should I expect?
    Beautiful scenery. A lot of Di Caprio not using his legs. And a winter-warmer that is unlikely to catch on.

    And one OMFG heart-stopping moment.

    But don't take a watch. You might just look at it too often....
This discussion has been closed.