Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If GE2015 had gone the way that today’s ICM sample remember

SystemSystem Posts: 12,651
edited January 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If GE2015 had gone the way that today’s ICM sample remembered voting EdM would be PM

I will after all be able to attend tomorrow’s big event in London when the investigation into what went wrong with the GE2015 polling reveals its findings.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    First.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    That's why with the all the adjustments, ICM moves Labour 5 points behind instead of being level without the adjustments.

    If ICM was still using the same methodology as in the GE then it would have shown them level, the same result as their final 2015 GE polls.

    Basically another poll that shows no change since the GE.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,714
    Speedy said:

    That's why with the all the adjustments, ICM moves Labour 5 points behind instead of being level without the adjustments.

    If ICM was still using the same methodology as in the GE then it would have shown them level, the same result as their final 2015 GE polls.

    Basically another poll that shows no change since the GE.

    No, it's another poll that shows that pollsters are essentially guessing.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    Belonging the the previous topic, but well worth a mention that tomorrow is Trump's advertised big announcement in Iowa, speculation is that he is going to get an endorsement by either Terry Branstad (Iowa Governor) or Jerry Falwell Jr (televangelist).
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,120
    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pedant alert, but with the way the "vote efficiency" stacked up in this election, I'm not actually sure a tiny lead in the popular vote (as implied in the raw data of this poll) would've been enough for Miliband to be PM.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Speedy said:

    That's why with the all the adjustments, ICM moves Labour 5 points behind instead of being level without the adjustments.

    If ICM was still using the same methodology as in the GE then it would have shown them level, the same result as their final 2015 GE polls.

    Basically another poll that shows no change since the GE.

    No change since the GE is good news for the Party that won the GE.

    It shows how low Labour have gone that their supporters are now saying "well if we adjust this and tinker with that then we're no worse off than when we had a devastating defeat".
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited January 2016
    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks the opinion polls were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    But we are never going to get perfect surveys as Tories and non-public sector workers in general have better things to do than answer surveys like work or do something else. So if leadership ratings are a good proxy then it may make sense to use them - if the hardcore left wing public sector workers who can be bothered to answer polls are thinking "he's crap but I'm voting for him anyway" then the chances are that those who aren't answering the polls are thinking "he's crap and I'm not voting for him".
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Danny565 said:

    Pedant alert, but with the way the "vote efficiency" stacked up in this election, I'm not actually sure a tiny lead in the popular vote (as implied in the raw data of this poll) would've been enough for Miliband to be PM.

    It would with the SNP.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    "If GE2015 had gone the way that today’s ICM sample remembered voting EdM would be PM"

    Also, turnout would have been 76%.
  • LibDem_ColinLibDem_Colin Posts: 31
    LAV 35% +1
    Perhaps the Labour party has changed its name recognising that they are about to flush quite a few votes down the pan!
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    I think we can draw some broad conclusions from the polls:

    1. The Tories are comfortably ahead of Labour (meaning: they would win a majority if another election were held tomorrow - maybe a landslide, maybe not, but certain a majority).

    2. Labour's support has not collapsed since Corbyn became leader. It may be at the same level as in May, a little lower or a little higher, but it hasn't evaporated.

    3. On the other Corbyn has not enjoyed any kind of honeymoon.

    4. The LDs aren't getting anywhere.

    5. The SNP are cruising.

    6. UKIP are not drastically down on the election, which is fine for them with the referendum coming up. (Oldham was a bad sign though.)
  • LibDem_ColinLibDem_Colin Posts: 31
    I recall that by 1993 (so post Black Weds Sept 1992) people 'remembered' voting so that the 1992GE was won by Kinnock.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited January 2016
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks the opinion polls were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    But we are never going to get perfect surveys as Tories and non-public sector workers in general have better things to do than answer surveys like work or do something else. So if leadership ratings are a good proxy then it may make sense to use them - if the hardcore left wing public sector workers who can be bothered to answer polls are thinking "he's crap but I'm voting for him anyway" then the chances are that those who aren't answering the polls are thinking "he's crap and I'm not voting for him".
    But again, if (IF!) Curtice is right, leadership ratings are not a good proxy; he believes they came closer to the real result completely by accident. If that's right, then it's illogical to say that because they happened to be more accurate on this occasion then they will always be accurate - it's no different to me saying if I had a broken clock which was stuck at 8:30, that simply because the broken clock is telling me the right time now, it will therefore always tell me the right time.

    Of course, it's a completely different story if it turns out Curtice is wrong, and the sampling problems weren't what went wrong with the polls. It might well be that a substantial chunk of people answering opinion polls in fact did switch from Labour to Tory at the last minute (or that they always planned to vote Tory but didn't want to admit it to pollsters), in which case leadership ratings WOULD be a good proxy - but John Curtice believes otherwise.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Danny565 said:


    But again, if (IF!) Curtice is right, leadership ratings are not a good proxy; he believes they came closer to the real result completely by accident. If that's right, then it's illogical to say that because they happened to be more accurate on this occasion then they will always be accurate - it's no different to me saying if I had a broken clock which was stuck at 8:30, that simply because the broken clock is telling me the right time now, it will therefore always tell me the right time.

    Of course, it's a completely different story if it turns out Curtice is wrong, and the sampling problems weren't what went wrong with the polls. It might well be that a substantial chunk of people answering opinion polls in fact did switch from Labour to Tory at the last minute (or that they always planned to vote Tory but didn't want to admit it to pollsters), in which case leadership ratings WOULD be a good proxy - but John Curtice believes otherwise.

    Of course, Curtice could be half-right. Ie, half the error could be caused by sampling, the other half by switching.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    I am cursed by the new thread!

    FPT (FWIW)

    Some of those who seek to ban him (Trump) are not doing so just because they disagree with what he has to say but because behind the silly proposal to stop even US Muslim citizens returning to their own country there is a good point, namely, that sensible risk assessment at this time - given the winds of change blowing through the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East - should make any country consider how much Muslim immigration it is sensible to permit and, second, whether particular individuals should be permitted to enter into a country.

    Labour did neither of these things when it was in government and uses its rage at Trump's comments to disguise the fact that its own immigration and integration failures have put this country more at risk than it would otherwise have been. There is a shoot the messenger aspect about the fury about Trump and Wilders and others.

    Trump's broad brush, unfocused and ill-considered statements don't do him much credit. But when Corbyn's leader thinks that IS have "strong points" (their knife sharpening skills, perhaps?) and Labour's London Mayoral candidate speaks at events organised by Cage, who think that the murderer of British citizens is "gentle", Dromey ought to be looking rather closer to home for "dangerous fools" who threaten Britain.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,120
    Wanderer said:

    I think we can draw some broad conclusions from the polls:

    1. The Tories are comfortably ahead of Labour (meaning: they would win a majority if another election were held tomorrow - maybe a landslide, maybe not, but certain a majority).

    2. Labour's support has not collapsed since Corbyn became leader. It may be at the same level as in May, a little lower or a little higher, but it hasn't evaporated.

    3. On the other Corbyn has not enjoyed any kind of honeymoon.

    4. The LDs aren't getting anywhere.

    5. The SNP are cruising.

    6. UKIP are not drastically down on the election, which is fine for them with the referendum coming up. (Oldham was a bad sign though.)

    On point 2, it amazes me that labour remains static under corbyn. I'm assuming when faced with the prospect of a general election we could - and perhaps even should - see this number slip back.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Razedabode said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think we can draw some broad conclusions from the polls:

    1. The Tories are comfortably ahead of Labour (meaning: they would win a majority if another election were held tomorrow - maybe a landslide, maybe not, but certain a majority).

    2. Labour's support has not collapsed since Corbyn became leader. It may be at the same level as in May, a little lower or a little higher, but it hasn't evaporated.

    3. On the other Corbyn has not enjoyed any kind of honeymoon.

    4. The LDs aren't getting anywhere.

    5. The SNP are cruising.

    6. UKIP are not drastically down on the election, which is fine for them with the referendum coming up. (Oldham was a bad sign though.)

    On point 2, it amazes me that labour remains static under corbyn. I'm assuming when faced with the prospect of a general election we could - and perhaps even should - see this number slip back.
    Depends which poll you look at, Labour have been on 29% or less with Comres
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'No, it's another poll that shows that pollsters are essentially guessing'

    Still apparently a buoyant market for this tat, though
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Danny565 said:

    But again, if (IF!) Curtice is right, leadership ratings are not a good proxy; he believes they came closer to the real result completely by accident. If that's right, then it's illogical to say that because they happened to be more accurate on this occasion then they will always be accurate - it's no different to me saying if I had a broken clock which was stuck at 8:30, that simply because the broken clock is telling me the right time now, it will therefore always tell me the right time.

    Of course, it's a completely different story if it turns out Curtice is wrong, and the sampling problems weren't what went wrong with the polls. It might well be that a substantial chunk of people answering opinion polls in fact did switch from Labour to Tory at the last minute (or that they always planned to vote Tory but didn't want to admit it to pollsters), in which case leadership ratings WOULD be a good proxy - but John Curtice believes otherwise.

    No I am suggesting that it is more than just a lucky accident that they were right. That it is not "completely" by accident.

    If Curtice is right that those polled responded as polled but there is a subset of voters who are not getting polled then it is not unreasonable to try and make some educated guesses as to how the missing electorate are voting.

    This missing electorate still live in the same country as the rest of the polled electorate and will have formed some opinions about leaders etc in a similar context to everyone else. If this missing electorate are more "swing" voters who won't vote for a crap leader just because he's on "their side" tribally then the leadership ratings will be an excellent proxy.

    Unless there's a reason to think that the polled electorate who are saying "he's crap but I'm voting for him anyway" have a reason to think "he's crap" that doesn't apply to the unpolled.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited January 2016
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
    Is there a logical reason to think that though? After all, Nick Clegg was ahead on leadership ratings in the 2010 election most of the time, yet that was far from a sign of how the less politically-minded voters broke!

    (In fact, much as people talk about the 2015 polling failure being "unprecedented", people seem to have forgotten how badly they failed with the Lib Dems in 2010: perhaps because of the exact same phenomenon that overestimated Labour in 2015, of a certain type of "Guardianish" person being much more enthusiastic about taking part in opinion polls than the average person? With the only difference being that Mr/Mrs Guardian had swung to Labour over from the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015?)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Razedabode said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think we can draw some broad conclusions from the polls:

    1. The Tories are comfortably ahead of Labour (meaning: they would win a majority if another election were held tomorrow - maybe a landslide, maybe not, but certain a majority).

    2. Labour's support has not collapsed since Corbyn became leader. It may be at the same level as in May, a little lower or a little higher, but it hasn't evaporated.

    3. On the other Corbyn has not enjoyed any kind of honeymoon.

    4. The LDs aren't getting anywhere.

    5. The SNP are cruising.

    6. UKIP are not drastically down on the election, which is fine for them with the referendum coming up. (Oldham was a bad sign though.)

    On point 2, it amazes me that labour remains static under corbyn. I'm assuming when faced with the prospect of a general election we could - and perhaps even should - see this number slip back.
    I think it would slip back during an election campaign.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    edited January 2016
    I spoke to someone in the polling industry today and they had this observation.

    The headline VI is from all those giving a VI, the DKs are obviously excluded.

    But the DKs are still asked the supplementaries* so that's 100% of the sample, so that explains why for example the headline VI were tied but Dave had a lead on leadership and the Tories had a lead on the economy.

    There's more respondents in the supplementaries than in the headline VI element.

    *Not with all pollsters
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Danny565 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
    Is there a logical reason to think that though? After all, Nick Clegg was ahead on leadership ratings in the 2010 election most of the time, yet that was far from a sign of how the less politically-minded voters broke!

    (In fact, much as people talk about the 2015 polling failure being "unprecedented", people seem to have forgotten how badly they failed with the Lib Dems in 2010: perhaps because of the exact same phenomenon that overestimated Labour in 2015, of a certain type of "Guardianish" person being much more enthusiastic about taking part in opinion polls than the average person?)
    The polls have been off in every election at least since 92 haven't they? It's just that it didn't change the expected result. Eg, in 1997 Labour underperformed the final polls but "Labour disappoints" wasn't the story the following day!
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I spoke to someone in the polling industry today and they had this observation.

    The headline VI is from all those giving a VI, the DKs are obviously excluded.

    But the DKs are still asked the supplementaries* so that's 100% of the sample, so that explains why for example the headline VI were tied but Dave had a lead on leadership and the Tories had a lead on the economy.

    There's more respondents in the supplementaries than in the headline VI element.

    *Not with all pollsters

    Ah.

    So it may be that there are not people who thought Cameron was the best leader, Con best on economy but who voted Labour. Or at least not many.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I spoke to someone in the polling industry today and they had this observation.

    The headline VI is from all those giving a VI, the DKs are obviously excluded.

    But the DKs are still asked the supplementaries* so that's 100% of the sample, so that explains why for example the headline VI were tied but Dave had a lead on leadership and the Tories had a lead on the economy.

    There's more respondents in the supplementaries than in the headline VI element.

    *Not with all pollsters

    Ah.

    So it may be that there are not people who thought Cameron was the best leader, Con best on economy but who voted Labour. Or at least not many.
    Add in by Feb 2015 Fewer voters have made up their mind on how to vote than in the past.....

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/03/15/fewer-voters-have-made-up-their-mind-on-how-to-vote-than-in-the-past/
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited January 2016
    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited January 2016
    I see that wonderful socialist utopia across the channel is in financial crisis. I wonder if Roger has got his savings elsewhere? Hollander, One of Millibands heroes I seem to recollect.

    "French President Francois Hollande has declared France is in a 'state of economic emergency' and has promised to spend £1.5billion to try and reduce the country's high unemployment rates.

    Labelling the country in 'a state of economic emergency' and requiring urgent new measures, the socialist also promised the spending would not come from tax rises" In a speech to business leaders, he said: 'These two billion euros will not be financed through extra taxes of any kind. They will be financed by savings.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404921/Hollande-declares-France-state-economic-emergency-throws-1-5-BILLION-reducing-unemployment.html#ixzz3xdJxQoa1
  • isamisam Posts: 42,398
    edited January 2016
    So no one says "Don't Know" to supplementary questions when polled. 100% give an opinion

    How extraordinary
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Moses_ said:

    I see that wonderful socialist utopia across the channel is in financial crisis. I wonder if Roger has got his savings elsewhere? Hollander, One of Millibands heroes I seem to recollect.

    "French President Francois Hollande has declared France is in a 'state of economic emergency' and has promised to spend £1.5billion to try and reduce the country's high unemployment rates.

    Labelling the country in 'a state of economic emergency' and requiring urgent new measures, the socialist also promised the spending would not come from tax rises" In a speech to business leaders, he said: 'These two billion euros will not be financed through extra taxes of any kind. They will be financed by savings.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404921/Hollande-declares-France-state-economic-emergency-throws-1-5-BILLION-reducing-unemployment.html#ixzz3xdJxQoa1

    Roger probably off shored his cash years ago. There'll be a Swiss vault with his name on it somewhere.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good evening.
    I had to laugh at this, It could be good advice:
    https://twitter.com/PolToons/status/689122719632355328
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    Oil is getting to be cheaper than water and oil and gas fields are being continuously discovered.
    Indeed Israel has just claimed to discovered one of the largest gas fields ever found off her continental shelf.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The most important question in politics is: Whose side are you on? When it comes to national security, the Labour leader is in danger of being on the wrong side of every line.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4668689.ece
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MikeK said:

    oil and gas fields are being continuously discovered.

    There's a GIANT one off Shetland. Oh, wait, that's a secret...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    David Cowling — "Can we trust the opinion polls?" Part 1:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06wbp96
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Razedabode said:

    Wanderer said:

    I think we can draw some broad conclusions from the polls:

    1. The Tories are comfortably ahead of Labour (meaning: they would win a majority if another election were held tomorrow - maybe a landslide, maybe not, but certain a majority).

    2. Labour's support has not collapsed since Corbyn became leader. It may be at the same level as in May, a little lower or a little higher, but it hasn't evaporated.

    3. On the other Corbyn has not enjoyed any kind of honeymoon.

    4. The LDs aren't getting anywhere.

    5. The SNP are cruising.

    6. UKIP are not drastically down on the election, which is fine for them with the referendum coming up. (Oldham was a bad sign though.)

    On point 2, it amazes me that labour remains static under corbyn. I'm assuming when faced with the prospect of a general election we could - and perhaps even should - see this number slip back.
    But is there not an issue, a thought in the minds of the electorate that Labour will change its leader. Its widely recognised or assumed that Corbyn is an idiot and therefore will be sacked or resign. The fact that he is in a large minority in his own parliamentary party is pretty obvious.
    As such then they may well assume - or a significant number of them will - that Corbyn's labour will not be the labour that will be fighting the election in 2020.
    Some Labour voters may well despair at this mess but hope/assume it will get better. Some people may well be completely clueless about who is who and disinterested in how many beans make 5.
    All of which ought not to make any difference to the tories. The centre ground is where they should be, they are squarely in it and whoever leads labour they are taking them leftwards.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Moses_ said:

    I see that wonderful socialist utopia across the channel is in financial crisis. I wonder if Roger has got his savings elsewhere? Hollander, One of Millibands heroes I seem to recollect.

    "French President Francois Hollande has declared France is in a 'state of economic emergency' and has promised to spend £1.5billion to try and reduce the country's high unemployment rates.

    Labelling the country in 'a state of economic emergency' and requiring urgent new measures, the socialist also promised the spending would not come from tax rises" In a speech to business leaders, he said: 'These two billion euros will not be financed through extra taxes of any kind. They will be financed by savings.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404921/Hollande-declares-France-state-economic-emergency-throws-1-5-BILLION-reducing-unemployment.html#ixzz3xdJxQoa1

    And for all that, France has roughly the same overall and per-capita GDP as us.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 601
    I still don't understand. Since the opinion polls published results are weighted by the previous general election voting the fact that they over sample labour supporters should not matter much.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    "French President Francois Hollande has declared France is in a 'state of economic emergency' and has promised to spend £1.5billion to try and reduce the country's high unemployment rates."

    Perhaps the pollsters could throw a couple of billion into trying to solve the polling crisis.

    The figures are about as reliable as they were at the GE.. id est USELESS.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    Can you convert that to litres please...
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Scott_P said:

    The most important question in politics is: Whose side are you on? When it comes to national security, the Labour leader is in danger of being on the wrong side of every line.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4668689.ece

    I thought it was should we, or should we not ban Trump? Well according to Labour anyway.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    That's a US gallon, not a proper Imperial one
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Three reasons to question Oxfam’s inequality figures

    1. The Oxfam numbers are made up
    2. The wealth measure is problematic
    3. The rising US dollar mucks up all the numbers"

    http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/01/18/three-reasons-to-question-oxfams-inequality-figures/
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    AndyJS said:

    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    Can you convert that to litres please...
    24pence a litre? thats for the $1.55 option
    (I may have had a brainmelt, but that must be close mustn't it?)

    I don't think we ought to ponder the $1 equivalent, it hurts like you have eaten ice cream too quickly.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,489
    gettingbetter said:

    I still don't understand. Since the opinion polls published results are weighted by the previous general election voting the fact that they over sample labour supporters should not matter much.

    Weighting only works if the people recalling voting Labour are correct, the suspicion is that as well as oversampling Labour voters there are a significant number of responders who are wrong or lying.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Scott_P said:

    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    That's a US gallon, not a proper Imperial one
    Ah - my calcs are ruined. I pass on the baton to the next generation...
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    AndyJS said:

    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    Can you convert that to litres please...
    A US gallon is about 3.8 liters, compared to the 4.5 in a UK gallon.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    According to Google, 1 US gallon = 3.78541 litres.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,767
    Speedy said:

    That's why with the all the adjustments, ICM moves Labour 5 points behind instead of being level without the adjustments.

    If ICM was still using the same methodology as in the GE then it would have shown them level, the same result as their final 2015 GE polls.

    Basically another poll that shows no change since the GE.

    That's important, because there's an element of double-counting going on - people compare polls now (including the adjustment) with polls before the election (without the adjustment) and then say "Ah, but you still have to make the adjustment, which would show the Tories further ahead".

    On the specific point of false memory, there are three kinds:

    1. People who voted X are over-sampled.
    2. People who say they voted X have forgotten or are embarrassed that they actually voted Y
    3. People who say they voted X are embarassed to admit that they didn't vote.

    Type 1 is a false sample. Types 2 and 3 are not false samples. Type 2 may be genuinely reverting (Labour voters who drifted Green or UKIP and regret it, for instance) and potentially will really vote X next time. Type 3 probably won't vote.

    In short, it shouldn't be overanalysed. Broadly speaking, as Wanderer and Speedy observe, not very much has happened since the GE.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    AndyJS said:

    "Three reasons to question Oxfam’s inequality figures

    1. The Oxfam numbers are made up
    2. The wealth measure is problematic
    3. The rising US dollar mucks up all the numbers"

    http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/01/18/three-reasons-to-question-oxfams-inequality-figures/

    Surely No. 1 is enough
    The presence of 2 others betrays an attempt to construct a case
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    Danny565 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
    Is there a logical reason to think that though? After all, Nick Clegg was ahead on leadership ratings in the 2010 election most of the time, yet that was far from a sign of how the less politically-minded voters broke!

    (In fact, much as people talk about the 2015 polling failure being "unprecedented", people seem to have forgotten how badly they failed with the Lib Dems in 2010: perhaps because of the exact same phenomenon that overestimated Labour in 2015, of a certain type of "Guardianish" person being much more enthusiastic about taking part in opinion polls than the average person? With the only difference being that Mr/Mrs Guardian had swung to Labour over from the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015?)
    I think you can radically simplify by inverting the case
    Some people don't care about politics until GEs and they vote for whomever seems leaderest
    (Spoiler alert: Not bald men or Stop the War patrons)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    EPG said:

    Not bald men

    Ah, somebody who agrees with me about Javid.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks headline voting intention figures were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
    Is there a logical reason to think that though? After all, Nick Clegg was ahead on leadership ratings in the 2010 election most of the time, yet that was far from a sign of how the less politically-minded voters broke!

    (In fact, much as people talk about the 2015 polling failure being "unprecedented", people seem to have forgotten how badly they failed with the Lib Dems in 2010: perhaps because of the exact same phenomenon that overestimated Labour in 2015, of a certain type of "Guardianish" person being much more enthusiastic about taking part in opinion polls than the average person? With the only difference being that Mr/Mrs Guardian had swung to Labour over from the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015?)
    I think you can radically simplify by inverting the case
    Some people don't care about politics until GEs and they vote for whomever seems leaderest
    (Spoiler alert: Not bald men or Stop the War patrons)
    Javid vs Jezza?

    Ruled out by your spoiler. Jezzas find head of hair may just edge it...

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Dramatic shift from CDU to AfD in new German poll
    CDU/CSU-EPP: 33% ↓
    SPD-S&D: 23% ↑
    AfD: 13% ↑
    LINKE-LEFT: 10%
    https://twitter.com/afneil
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    edited January 2016
    "The Bouquet Residence, the lady of the house...oh goody an army witchhunt...you really must come to one of my candle lit suppers...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZCPQGFWwAAeH_m.jpg
  • frpenkridgefrpenkridge Posts: 670
    So the basic problem seems to be that the polling companies are not asking enough Tories who they are going to vote for. If only there was some way of finding out how many Tories there are and then we could ask them who they were going to vote for.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    "The Bouquet Residence, the lady of the house...oh goody an army witchhunt...you really must come to one of my candle lit suppers...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZCPQGFWwAAeH_m.jpg

    Send her on a trip to Iraq to interview any complainants. A white flag and a suitably worded recorded message from Corbyn should be enough to keep her safe.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HYUFD said:

    Dramatic shift from CDU to AfD in new German poll
    CDU/CSU-EPP: 33% ↓
    SPD-S&D: 23% ↑
    AfD: 13% ↑
    LINKE-LEFT: 10%
    https://twitter.com/afneil

    Inevitable development really.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    But if John Curtice's theory last week was right (that the polls were wrong simply because they were never surveying enough Tories, rather than it being "shy Tories" or a late swing), that suggests leadership ratings are not a good indicator either -- Curtice thinks the opinion polls were in fact an accurate predictor of how the people who took part in the polls voted, despite those same polls giving the Tories big leads on leadership and the economy.
    But we are never going to get perfect surveys as Tories and non-public sector workers in general have better things to do than answer surveys like work or do something else. So if leadership ratings are a good proxy then it may make sense to use them - if the hardcore left wing public sector workers who can be bothered to answer polls are thinking "he's crap but I'm voting for him anyway" then the chances are that those who aren't answering the polls are thinking "he's crap and I'm not voting for him".
    And here's another PB contributor knocking the feckless, lazy public sector workers. It's laughable really that people with such a mindset exist.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T:

    Tracey Ullman show on tonight, BBC1, 10:45. Here she is in 1983 with her pop hit "They Don't Know":

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9un119lq4c
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    edited January 2016
    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dramatic shift from CDU to AfD in new German poll
    CDU/CSU-EPP: 33% ↓
    SPD-S&D: 23% ↑
    AfD: 13% ↑
    LINKE-LEFT: 10%
    https://twitter.com/afneil

    Inevitable development really.
    Indeed, the AfD now at UKIP levels
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Tim_B said:

    I filled up my car today for $1.55 a gallon. That's below a pound a gallon.

    In some states it's apparently down around $1 a gallon.

    Still about $5.40 per US gallon here despite the pound's depreciation.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited January 2016
    foxinsoxuk said:

    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Danny565 said:

    Razedabode said:

    Basically finger in the air stuff. Think Mikes point about paying attention to the leadership ratings -and perhaps other underlying questions - much more indicative than VI polls. On that count, Labour must be doing pretty poorly.

    snip.
    Those ratings might be a useful sign how less politically minded voters will break.
    Is there a logical reason to think that though? After all, Nick Clegg was ahead on leadership ratings in the 2010 election most of the time, yet that was far from a sign of how the less politically-minded voters broke!

    (In fact, much as people talk about the 2015 polling failure being "unprecedented", people seem to have forgotten how badly they failed with the Lib Dems in 2010: perhaps because of the exact same phenomenon that overestimated Labour in 2015, of a certain type of "Guardianish" person being much more enthusiastic about taking part in opinion polls than the average person? With the only difference being that Mr/Mrs Guardian had swung to Labour over from the Lib Dems between 2010 and 2015?)
    I think you can radically simplify by inverting the case
    Some people don't care about politics until GEs and they vote for whomever seems leaderest
    (Spoiler alert: Not bald men or Stop the War patrons)
    Javid vs Jezza?

    Ruled out by your spoiler. Jezzas find head of hair may just edge it...

    Weird beard?

    On a related subject are Corbyn's somewhat deranged recent remarks and activities down to stress ... stress caused by not being able to find his biros, now that his minders have removed them from his top pocket?
    I think we have all suffered from this syndrome, not being able to find a biro when you want one and when you do its dried up. How many tenuous flashes of inspiration have been lost to civilisation as a result, how many dead certs have raced on without a bet layed? Its a real problem with only one practical but disfiguring solution.
    Certainly Corbyn will be saving on dry cleaning and stain remover, but thats to his wife's benefit.

    Its sad to think of all the sad desolate shabby biros lying around and steadily drying up all their precious biroid fluids, all unwanted in the world, at the back of draws, stuck down sofa cushions or crushed unnaturally together in unhealthy conditions in the dark recesses of ladies handbags. Now Corbyn;s once proud healthy sunlit biros must jostle for their very existence in some rucksack and fight to be noticed. For a man of Corbyn's sensitive nature it must be worrying.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: Matt, tomorrow's Telegraph https://t.co/w1IdbGKVAb
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    How about "Robert Mugabe" room.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Matt, tomorrow's Telegraph https://t.co/w1IdbGKVAb

    LOL
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    edited January 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    Taken its logical conclusion is just absolutely ridiculous to this. Pretty much every friggin building in the UK will have to be renamed, if we say any named person who by modern standards racist, sexist, homophobic, profited in any way from the slave trade, etc etc etc.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    Tracey Ullman show on tonight, BBC1, 10:45. Here she is in 1983 with her pop hit "They Don't Know":

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9un119lq4c

    Watched it last week, she does a very good Merkel.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited January 2016
    Moses_ said:

    [Hollande] said: 'These two billion euros will not be financed through extra taxes of any kind. They will be financed by savings.'

    Extra spending financed by savings?

    Run that one past me again - he wants to spend more by spending less?

    Has he appointed Ed Miliband as economic adviser, perhaps?
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    Taken its logical conclusion is just absolutely ridiculous to this. Pretty much every friggin building in the UK will have to be renamed, if we say any named person who by modern standards racist, sexist, homophobic, profited in any way from the slave trade, etc etc etc.
    Not to mention the island and the Colossus.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    AndyJS said:

    David Cowling — "Can we trust the opinion polls?" Part 1:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06wbp96

    A good listen. I'm looking forward to the next two parts.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016

    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,738
    "LAV 35%"

    Freudian slip there by Mike? :lol:
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    "LAV 35%"

    Freudian slip there by Mike? :lol:

    Ratings down the pan
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited January 2016
    On topic: We shouldn't get too hung up on micro analysis of polls. Polls are polls, not exact predictions of future (or indeed current) vote share. They are of course very useful, if interpreted sensibly. Sensible interpretation of polls requires applying a modicum of common sense to what they are telling you. A modicum of common sense told you in 2015 that fewer people would vote for Ed Miliband as PM than the polls indicated. Even the tiniest smidgen of common sense tells you that, in a general election, far fewer people will vote for Jeremy Corbyn to become PM than the polls indicate.

    In the meantime, outside a GE, where there is zero risk of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM, Labour won't do too badly in local and mayoral elections, relatively speaking (Holyrood will be a different story, of course). This will give false comfort to Labour supporters.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,738
    AndyJS said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    How about "Robert Mugabe" room.
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the Corbyn Room!"
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html

    Problems of discharging patients are long standing ones and in my opinion are not helped by families not taking on their responsibilities. The NHS as an organisation is I think working hard to discharge people properly and so ease pressure on beds.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Moses_ said:

    [Hollande] said: 'These two billion euros will not be financed through extra taxes of any kind. They will be financed by savings.'

    Extra spending financed by savings?

    Run that one past me again - he wants to spend more by spending less?

    Has he appointed Ed Miliband as economic adviser, perhaps?
    Oh, come on, Mr. Nabavi. He is talking about efficiency savings. Probably you haven't had enough exposure to the public sector, but during Brown's tenure (and especially towards the end) they were all the rage. Surely you remember Labour's 2010 budget which said that the NHS would not need any extra funding as it could find £10bn in efficiency savings.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    I'm not a tennis follower, but the current tennis match fixing scandal has reached me.

    ESPN's Outside The Lines today was devoted to it, and they re-ran their report from February 2008 about it, heavily featuring Betfair.

    The betting outfits apparently jointly maintain a list of tennis matches featuring unusual betting patterns or results, currently (as of 2008) over 150 matches, including Wimbledon.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    Taken its logical conclusion is just absolutely ridiculous to this. Pretty much every friggin building in the UK will have to be renamed, if we say any named person who by modern standards racist, sexist, homophobic, profited in any way from the slave trade, etc etc etc.
    If they get named after left wing murderous dictators, it will probably be ok
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html

    Beautiful.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html

    And the BMA might have listened as the current action - she was referring to the cancelled strikes - is not as severe.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    AndyJS said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    How about "Robert Mugabe" room.
    The Castro Bistro
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,738
    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    "LAV 35%"

    Freudian slip there by Mike? :lol:

    Ratings down the pan
    JICIPM! :lol:
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    Tracey Ullman show on tonight, BBC1, 10:45. Here she is in 1983 with her pop hit "They Don't Know":

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9un119lq4c

    Tracey Ullman, a very, very talented lady and, in her day, drop dead gorgeous too. My favourite clip:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZpehLJ5OYg

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Chris_A said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html
    And the BMA might have listened as the current action - she was referring to the cancelled strikes - is not as severe.

    Here's what she said last week

    A doctor herself, Ms Wollason stressed that she does support junior doctors but said the industrial action will "solve nothing; just harm patients and undermine public trust. Doctors shouldn't walk out on their patients".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12093007/David-Cameron-calls-on-junior-doctors-to-call-off-damaging-strike.html
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    AndyJS said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Oh god The Times reporting that "Rhodes-ism" is spreading to another college.

    University College, want to change the name of the computer room from the Rhodes room to something else.
    How about "Robert Mugabe" room.
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the Corbyn Room!"
    The Jackie Pallo room - where you can wrestle with your conscience.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html

    But remind me what has Osborne promised on social care?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HurstLlama said:

    Oh, come on, Mr. Nabavi. He is talking about efficiency savings. Probably you haven't had enough exposure to the public sector, but during Brown's tenure (and especially towards the end) they were all the rage. Surely you remember Labour's 2010 budget which said that the NHS would not need any extra funding as it could find £10bn in efficiency savings.

    Well, if he's saying that France needs to transfer spending from wasteful areas to helping the unemployed, he's on the wrong track. France doesn't need to spend a Euro more than it currently does. It just needs to sweep away anti-business, anti-employment regulation. Fining employers for employing, and making it near-impossible to get rid of employees, is a perfect way of boosting unemployment.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,595
    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016

    She would seem a good choice to succeed Jeremy Hunt in due course. Also I responded to you on the last thread thanking you for your measured response to my comments on 7 day NHS and that all sides need to compromise on their positions quickly to end the stand off
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Chris_A said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris_A said:

    Now why can't we have this woman as Health Secretary. She at least knows what she's talking about.

    The NHS can't function properly unless/until patients can be safely discharged, social care needs higher priority https://t.co/8asdZ5H2bF

    — Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) January 18, 2016
    Yes she does

    A leading Tory MP has branded planned strike action by junior doctors “appalling” and “highly unsafe” and warned it could harm patients.

    Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, said the proposed walk out was “extreme” and called the move an “extraordinary step".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11993121/Junior-doctor-strike-appalling-and-highly-unsafe-says-leading-Tory-MP.html
    But remind me what has Osborne promised on social care?

    I thought we were discussing the woman you wanted as Health Secretary just last week saying the strike will "solve nothing; just harm patients and undermine public trust. Doctors shouldn't walk out on their patients"

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Bit unexpected — Cameron gets tough on face veils:

    "David Cameron backs bans on Muslim face veils as Tories plan crackdown on gender segregation
    Prime Minister says it is 'proper and sensible' for Muslim women to remove face veils when asked to by public officials"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12106833/David-Cameron-I-will-back-schools-and-courts-which-ban-face-veils.html
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Tragic news today for the 1,000 losing their jobs in Wales. Newsnight's response is to get luvvie Michael Sheen on for his views...... Unspoofable? Time for bed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    HYUFD said:

    Dramatic shift from CDU to AfD in new German poll
    CDU/CSU-EPP: 33% ↓
    SPD-S&D: 23% ↑
    AfD: 13% ↑
    LINKE-LEFT: 10%
    https://twitter.com/afneil

    Forgive me, I'm missing the drama there?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Tragic news today for the 1,000 losing their jobs in Wales. Newsnight's response is to get luvvie Michael Sheen on for his views...... Unspoofable? Time for bed.

    Nothing is unspoofable about Newsnight these days. Most nights, it is just the Guardian talking to itself and the viewing figures are about on par.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025