politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If indeed it was “herding” who can blame the pollsters?

System · January 2016

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If indeed it was “herding” who can blame the pollsters?

I like the above chart from yesterday’s polling investigation presentation which does suggest that deliberately or not the overall affect was that a pattern that appeared like herding happened.

Read the full story here

peter_from_putney · January 2016

First ..... again!

Sandpit · January 2016

A picture tells a thousand words...

runnymede · January 2016

'deliberately or not '

Oh please

Tissue_Price · January 2016

Nearly everyone herds. It's a rational and usually sensible thing to do - you update your estimate of the true situation (your prior belief) based on the new information. If you look like an outlier, you probably are.

The markets and the media herded towards the polls. Next time, they won't trust the polls as much. Again this is a rational response to new evidence.

MTimT · January 2016

Tissue_Price said:
Nearly everyone herds. It's a rational and usually sensible thing to do - you update your estimate of the true situation (your prior belief) based on the new information. If you look like an outlier, you probably are.

The markets and the media herded towards the polls. Next time, they won't trust the polls as much. Again this is a rational response to new evidence.

There are many things that can cause a result that looks like herding:

1. starting from different points but aiming for the same place
2. adapting to what your neighbor is doing (like flocking birds or shoaling fish)
3. adapting your methods to conform with 'best practice' of a group (doing things the same way results in getting the same result)
4. buying a narrative and selecting information to fit that narrative
5. simply copying your neighbors' results
6. {Edit} oops - forgot the important one, having a German Shepherd or a Border Collie

and so on and so on. This is the problem with seeking backward causality in complex systems. There are just too many Just So stories.

AlastairMeeks · January 2016

Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.

williamglenn · January 2016

Austria's introduced a limit on the number of asylum seekers it will accept of 127,500 between now and 2019 with a maximum of 37,500 this year.

On the face of this is surely a break with the UN Convention so will this be the start of the process that leads to the rewriting of the treaties?

Casino_Royale · January 2016

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.

That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)

Alanbrooke · January 2016

Ireland's Fianna Fail to campaign against Brexit

http://sluggerotoole.com/2016/01/20/fianna-fail-will-campaign-against-brexit-in-ni-regardless-of-the-outcome-of-ge16/

SimonStClare · January 2016

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a herd of ducks.

Alanbrooke · January 2016

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.

and yet the lemmings at the centre still fall off the cliff.

Alanbrooke · January 2016

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)

He'll get banned form Oxford though

Plato_Says · January 2016

Golly http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/20/danish-town-makes-pork-mandatory-in-public-institutions-to-aid-integration/

RobD · January 2016

SimonStClare said:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a herd of ducks.

Maybe a horse-sized duck?

Alanbrooke · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
Golly http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/20/danish-town-makes-pork-mandatory-in-public-institutions-to-aid-integration/

but is that halal pork ?

Tissue_Price · January 2016

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)

Well even Rod, and Lebo & Norpoth, herded. And people will herd more in their public statements than in private; I was much more cautious about the election result when posting generally on here than I was in private conversations - or indeed my competition entry (all of which have the inestimable advantage of being claimable as a game theory-inspired effort).

DavidL · January 2016

As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?

Charles · January 2016

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?

it's cheap

Plato_Says · January 2016

True, but if your reason d'etre is truth and accuracy, what's the point of bent results?

Total own goal.

Tissue_Price said:
Nearly everyone herds. It's a rational and usually sensible thing to do - you update your estimate of the true situation (your prior belief) based on the new information. If you look like an outlier, you probably are.

The markets and the media herded towards the polls. Next time, they won't trust the polls as much. Again this is a rational response to new evidence.

Alanbrooke · January 2016

Well roger me with the rough end of a porcupine, apparently the Germans think Europe can't take all the people who want to migrate here.

I'm sure that insight will come as a surprise to us all.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/weltwirtschaftsforum/gauck-verurteilt-mangelnde-solidaritaet-in-fluechtlingskrise-14024407.html

DavidL · January 2016

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap

But not necessarily value for money.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Games design courses are still guff (I say this having worked in the industry). The people serious about going into the games industry would study ComSci, AI, physics and such. There may be modules on games design within some of these courses, but to specifically do a degree in it is a poor idea. When I was hiring people with a degree in games design would get their CVs thrown thrown in the digital bin and we instructed agencies not to send us applicants who didn't have a speciality. My point is that guff tends to always be guff no matter how much the proponents try and dress it up. Most of the people who did game design at university ended up in QA/testing, not exactly the most fulfilling career.
It is the same as uni's who offer "computer programming" rather than Computer Science.
I haven't been involved with graduate recruitment for a few years, but we generally treated comp sci graduates Max describes above wrt Games design courses.

Generally the best programmers and engineers did not from comp sci courses. For some reason, I know a number of excellent programmers who have geography-related degrees. I can understand physicists making good programmers, but geographers?

Perhaps the state of comp sci courses has improved...

I don't know what industry you were in, but that isn't true today. Computer Programming / Game Design / Web Design / insert latest IT fad degrees not worth much more than paper it is written on. Computer Science (from a top uni) gets you a long way, and not just your Google's of the world. As it is the sort of subject that teaches "logical thinking".

It is the difference between "mechanics" course and mechanical engineering.

JosiasJessop · January 2016

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Games design courses are still guff (I say this having worked in the industry). The people serious about going into the games industry would study ComSci, AI, physics and such. There may be modules on games design within some of these courses, but to specifically do a degree in it is a poor idea. When I was hiring people with a degree in games design would get their CVs thrown thrown in the digital bin and we instructed agencies not to send us applicants who didn't have a speciality. My point is that guff tends to always be guff no matter how much the proponents try and dress it up. Most of the people who did game design at university ended up in QA/testing, not exactly the most fulfilling career.
It is the same as uni's who offer "computer programming" rather than Computer Science.
I haven't been involved with graduate recruitment for a few years, but we generally treated comp sci graduates Max describes above wrt Games design courses.

Generally the best programmers and engineers did not from comp sci courses. For some reason, I know a number of excellent programmers who have geography-related degrees. I can understand physicists making good programmers, but geographers?

Perhaps the state of comp sci courses has improved...
I don't know what industry you were in, but that isn't true today. Computer Programming / Game Design / Web Design / insert latest IT fad degrees not worth much more than paper it is written on. Computer Science (from a top uni) gets you a long way, and not just your Google's of the world. As it is the sort of subject that teaches "logical thinking".

I wasn't comparing it to those degrees, just stating the general apparent standard of comp sci graduates to my industry (embedded software).

Charles · January 2016

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.

Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.

Plato_Says · January 2016

But ICM did it too. They've rubbished their phone polling premium.

Us nitpickers have lost faith. So stupid.

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?

david_herdson · January 2016

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.

Punters do!

Tissue_Price · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
True, but if your reason d'etre is truth and accurate, what's the point of bent results?

Total own goal.
Tissue_Price said:
Nearly everyone herds. It's a rational and usually sensible thing to do - you update your estimate of the true situation (your prior belief) based on the new information. If you look like an outlier, you probably are.

The markets and the media herded towards the polls. Next time, they won't trust the polls as much. Again this is a rational response to new evidence.

But you know that your method can't deliver "truth" - that's the very essence of sampling. By comparing with others, you're acknowledging that you can't be perfect and you are seeking to improve your own results.

The alternative approach would be that of the much-ridiculed (mostly after the event, natch) Angus Reid. They didn't look like they were herding in 2010, but as a new entrant this was probably a rational strategy for them.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

Games design courses are still guff (I say this having worked in the industry). The people serious about going into the games industry would study ComSci, AI, physics and such. There may be modules on games design within some of these courses, but to specifically do a degree in it is a poor idea. When I was hiring people with a degree in games design would get their CVs thrown thrown in the digital bin and we instructed agencies not to send us applicants who didn't have a speciality. My point is that guff tends to always be guff no matter how much the proponents try and dress it up. Most of the people who did game design at university ended up in QA/testing, not exactly the most fulfilling career.
It is the same as uni's who offer "computer programming" rather than Computer Science.
I haven't been involved with graduate recruitment for a few years, but we generally treated comp sci graduates Max describes above wrt Games design courses.

Generally the best programmers and engineers did not from comp sci courses. For some reason, I know a number of excellent programmers who have geography-related degrees. I can understand physicists making good programmers, but geographers?

Perhaps the state of comp sci courses has improved...
I don't know what industry you were in, but that isn't true today. Computer Programming / Game Design / Web Design / insert latest IT fad degrees not worth much more than paper it is written on. Computer Science (from a top uni) gets you a long way, and not just your Google's of the world. As it is the sort of subject that teaches "logical thinking".
I wasn't comparing it to those degrees, just stating the general apparent standard of comp sci graduates to my industry (embedded software).

Well there is a big issue with Computer Science industry, in that your Google's / Microsoft's hover up all the best talent and then after that the likes of the banks pay big bucks for talent.

When I was more involved in academia (at one of the top ranked unis) all the talented undergrads either wanted to work for the big flash firms, what they saw as cool i.e. games companies or would take the cash to work in banking (and similar sectors). They didn't want to code monkey on what they saw as boring functional tasks (but often important tasks), by boring insert not latest fad.

Charles · January 2016

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.
Punters do!

But they aren't material to the papers

david_herdson · January 2016

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)

Churchill was an outlier who was wrong quite a lot too. On the Gold Standard, he was a herd who was wrong.

Plato_Says · January 2016

That's entirely true of Indy ComRes leading questions, but not sure it's fair on the rest of the polling.

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.

DavidL · January 2016

That chart reminds me of Asch's experiments on conformity.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html

Even those who were clearly getting different answers did not feel able to say it.

NickPalmer · January 2016

Sanders now very clearly ahead in NH - by 26 points, according to one poll, by 6 in another (and UK pollsters fret when they're 3 points out!). Clinton ahead fairly comfortably nationally, though whether NH and possibly Iowa will change that, who knows? At present, Sanders is ONLY campaigning seriously in the first 3 states, relying on momentum elsewhere (though I did run across some Sanders volunteers in CT a few months ago).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_pres_primary/

Plato_Says · January 2016

I felt really sorry for Angus Reid. We collectively concluded they'd a good model. They engaged with us nerds and were wrong.

Poor bastards.

Tissue_Price said:

Plato_Says said:
True, but if your reason d'etre is truth and accurate, what's the point of bent results?

Total own goal.
Tissue_Price said:
Nearly everyone herds. It's a rational and usually sensible thing to do - you update your estimate of the true situation (your prior belief) based on the new information. If you look like an outlier, you probably are.

The markets and the media herded towards the polls. Next time, they won't trust the polls as much. Again this is a rational response to new evidence.

But you know that your method can't deliver "truth" - that's the very essence of sampling. By comparing with others, you're acknowledging that you can't be perfect and you are seeking to improve your own results.

The alternative approach would be that of the much-ridiculed (mostly after the event, natch) Angus Reid. They didn't look like they were herding in 2010, but as a new entrant this was probably a rational strategy for them.

SimonStClare · January 2016

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.
Punters do!
But they aren't material to the papers

2010-15 saw more polling carried out than I care to remember, and not just YouGov’s five days a week. It may have filled a few column inches for the newspapers, but I don’t see them commissioning anything quite like that number again. Some pollsters may be gone by 2020 as a result of this so not sure it was worth it in the long run.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Ken Clarke vs 350ish economists

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)
Churchill was an outlier who was wrong quite a lot too. On the Gold Standard, he was a herd who was wrong.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Did Gallop and Harris exit after 1992?

SimonStClare said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.
Punters do!
But they aren't material to the papers
2010-15 saw more polling carried out than I care to remember, and not just YouGov’s five days a week. It may have filled a few column inches for the newspapers, but I don’t see them commissioning anything quite like that number again. Some pollsters may be gone by 2020 as a result of this so not sure it was worth it in the long run.

Richard_Nabavi · January 2016

NickPalmer said:
Sanders now very clearly ahead in NH - by 26 points, according to one poll, by 6 in another (and UK pollsters fret when they're 3 points out!). Clinton ahead fairly comfortably nationally, though whether NH and possibly Iowa will change that, who knows? At present, Sanders is ONLY campaigning seriously in the first 3 states, relying on momentum elsewhere (though I did run across some Sanders volunteers in CT a few months ago).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_pres_primary/

Worth reading Charlie Cook on this:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/352794/clinton-its-time-stay-cool-iowa-new-hampshire?mref=landing-big

One of the interesting points he makes is that NH is extremely difficult to poll, because independents can vote in either the GOP or Dem primary (but not both), so asking them separately about the two contests is misleading. He also thinks that any apparent Sanders surge will soon disappear in subsequent contests.

Tissue_Price · January 2016

Interesting development on the Psychoactive Substances Bill:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/689820356035538944

Plato_Says · January 2016

Toby Harnden
Trump live on CNN slamming CNN for not covering him: "Even CNN doesn't use the CNN poll."

Pulpstar · January 2016

Tissue_Price said:
Interesting development on the Psychoactive Substances Bill:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/689820356035538944

I'm guessing they help him relax

Plato_Says · January 2016

Rob Merrick
Home Office minister has acknowledged that poppers are "beneficial in enabling anal sex", says Keith Vaz

TheWhiteRabbit · January 2016

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:
Sanders now very clearly ahead in NH - by 26 points, according to one poll, by 6 in another (and UK pollsters fret when they're 3 points out!). Clinton ahead fairly comfortably nationally, though whether NH and possibly Iowa will change that, who knows? At present, Sanders is ONLY campaigning seriously in the first 3 states, relying on momentum elsewhere (though I did run across some Sanders volunteers in CT a few months ago).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_pres_primary/
Worth reading Charlie Cook on this:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/352794/clinton-its-time-stay-cool-iowa-new-hampshire?mref=landing-big

One of the interesting points he makes is that NH is extremely difficult to poll, because independents can vote in either the GOP or Dem primary (but not both), so asking them separately about the two contests is misleading. He also thinks that any apparent Sanders surge will soon disappear in subsequent contests.

NH likes a local.

If it weren't for the threat of federal indictment, I'd be tempted to back Clinton.

TCPoliticalBetting · January 2016

Tissue_Price said:
Interesting development on the Psychoactive Substances Bill:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/689820356035538944

That explains a lot about the erratic Blunt.

JosiasJessop · January 2016

FrancisUrquhart said:
Well there is a big issue with Computer Science industry, in that your Google's / Microsoft's hover up all the best talent and then after that the likes of the banks pay big bucks for talent.

When I was more involved in academia (at one of the top ranked unis) all the talented undergrads either wanted to work for the big flash firms, what they saw as cool i.e. games companies or would take the cash to work in banking (and similar sectors). They didn't want to code monkey on what they saw as boring functional tasks (but often important tasks), by boring insert not latest fad.

You have a good point there.

However I always got a buzz from seeing a product I'd worked on in the shops. Knowing that my code - sometime directly - was used & visible in tens / hundreds of thousands of homes.

And I know I'm not alone in that.

It was fun to confuse salesmen by pointing out their spiel is wrong (sometimes because I helped write the official spiel), and even by bringing up easter eggs including a photo of myself.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.

Charles · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.

That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.

TGOHF · January 2016

On topic - surely the company that published their final poll first is the least herdy but definitely wrongy.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Michael Fabricant
I informed the Tea Room discussion on poppers that I had tried them, but that my bottom remains intacta. https://t.co/gTfgDB9Kj2

Tissue_Price said:
Interesting development on the Psychoactive Substances Bill:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/689820356035538944

Sunil_Prasannan · January 2016

SimonStClare said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.
Punters do!
But they aren't material to the papers
2010-15 saw more polling carried out than I care to remember, and not just YouGov’s five days a week. It may have filled a few column inches for the newspapers, but I don’t see them commissioning anything quite like that number again. Some pollsters may be gone by 2020 as a result of this so not sure it was worth it in the long run.

Number of opinion polls in run-up to GE2015*:

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594817333664817152

* yes, I didn't include May because it wasn't a full month prior to polling day

runnymede · January 2016

'Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.'

Exactly - a bit of volatility is good, too.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

British taxpayers' (and EU) cash given to group accused of helping Middle East death squads

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6873656/Assassins-aid.html

MarkHopkins · January 2016

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.

Ahh. But did your client win?

Pulpstar · January 2016

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.

I hope your product is better than Ed Miliband.

Now clearly Crosby could charge 20 times this and it would be value (I have no idea what his fees were), but that looks like money for old rope to me for Axelrod.

I can't remember a single Labour advert/poster other than the NHS cut to the bone one - which wasn't very good.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.

I presume the difference is your team have actually done some work...Was there any evidence Axelrod actually did anything for that money. He turned up a handful of times, but most of the time remained in the US and I don't remember anybody pointing to anything he had done during the campaign.

MikeK · January 2016

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)
Churchill was an outlier who was wrong quite a lot too. On the Gold Standard, he was a herd who was wrong.

Oh David, are you not a son of a Herd?

david_herdson · January 2016

From the YouGov poll on Corbyn: Cameron's net rating in Scotland is better than Corbyn's in London:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/689825362591772672

Plato_Says · January 2016

The poster that was identified as probable child abuse fracture. Super stuff, not.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.
I hope your product is better than Ed Miliband.

Now clearly Crosby could charge 20 times this and it would be value (I have no idea what his fees were), but that looks like money for old rope to me for Axelrod.

I can't remember a single Labour advert/poster other than the NHS cut to the bone one - which wasn't very good.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Yup.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.
I presume the difference is your team have actually done some work...Was there any evidence Axelrod actually did anything for that money. He turned up a handful of times, but most of the time remained in the US and I don't remember anybody pointing to anything he had done during the campaign.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Rob Hutton
Reasons Labour lost in May, cont: they spent THREE TIMES as much on a single ad in the Financial Times than they did on Facebook ads.

Still, at least the £53,266.75 that Labour spent on that ad in the FT paid off in terms of publicity: https://t.co/1jFsA0LbSY

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
Rob Hutton
Reasons Labour lost in May, cont: they spent THREE TIMES as much on a single ad in the Financial Times than they did on Facebook ads.

Still, at least the £53,266.75 that Labour spent on that ad in the FT paid off in terms of publicity: https://t.co/1jFsA0LbSY

Bonkers.....

GarethoftheVale2 · January 2016

williamglenn said:
Austria's introduced a limit on the number of asylum seekers it will accept of 127,500 between now and 2019 with a maximum of 37,500 this year.

On the face of this is surely a break with the UN Convention so will this be the start of the process that leads to the rewriting of the treaties?

Possibly something to do with the fact the Freedom Party were on 34% in the latest poll

Pulpstar · January 2016

My colleague informs me molybdenum is at £31/kilo. I'm guessing ALL asset materials are down ?

david_herdson · January 2016

MikeK said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:
Numerous nature programmes from the Serengeti have shown us that the wildebeest at the centre of the herd are not the ones to get consumed by predators.
That's exactly it. We're programmed as a species to not be outliers - because we die. It's a base survival instinct.

That's why we're so impressed with those that do that turn out to be right (or right-ish) e.g. Churchill.. Or Rod Crosby.

The latter will enjoy being placed with the former :-)
Churchill was an outlier who was wrong quite a lot too. On the Gold Standard, he was a herd who was wrong.
Oh David, are you not a son of a Herd?

No, though presumably a distant male-line ancestor was! ;-)

Plato_Says · January 2016

This is just bizarre

Arj Singh
Poppers have emotional benefits in LGBT relationships through facilitating intimacy- Tory Mike Freer. But won't vote with Labour against ban

Don't heterosexuals get the same?

flightpath01 · January 2016

runnymede said:
'deliberately or not '

Oh please

Well yes, I have to agree. What use is a poll if it is skewing to an average or mean or whatever of all polls? It turns them all into the lowest common denominator.
If there are several polls all with independent methodologies running their own way within 'chinese walls' and they give similar results, then fine.
But to forgive polls for spurious results simply because they would rather be all wrong together, prefer not to be the odd one out even if they might be right, is plain daft.
The truth is cheap polling is worthless. The Suns day to day polling for 5 years and more - a total waste of time and energy, a gimmick.

AnneJGP · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
Rob Hutton
Reasons Labour lost in May, cont: they spent THREE TIMES as much on a single ad in the Financial Times than they did on Facebook ads.

Still, at least the £53,266.75 that Labour spent on that ad in the FT paid off in terms of publicity: https://t.co/1jFsA0LbSY

Amazing what a difference a year makes. By comparison with Mr Corbyn, Mr Miliband looks almost impressive.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
This is just bizarre

Arj Singh
Poppers have emotional benefits in LGBT relationships through facilitating intimacy- Tory Mike Freer. But won't vote with Labour against ban

Don't heterosexuals get the same?

Also, are we not missing the massive point here. Poppers are being proactively defended here for "facilitating intimacy" in gay community, but what about other drugs?

Plato_Says · January 2016

I know! Wallace and Gromit are streets ahead.

AnneJGP said:

Plato_Says said:
Rob Hutton
Reasons Labour lost in May, cont: they spent THREE TIMES as much on a single ad in the Financial Times than they did on Facebook ads.

Still, at least the £53,266.75 that Labour spent on that ad in the FT paid off in terms of publicity: https://t.co/1jFsA0LbSY
Amazing what a difference a year makes. By comparison with Mr Corbyn, Mr Miliband looks almost impressive.

rcs1000 · January 2016

There's something very curious about this current equity sell off.

Pretty much every market in every developed country is down almost exactly the same amount in US dollars.

S&P500 -10%
NASDAQ -12%
Eurostoxx -11%
FTSE -12%
CAC -11%
DAX -12%
IBEX -12%

I don't think I've ever seen this degree of correlation. Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.

CD13 · January 2016

On the Lord Bramall investigation ... I can understand why the Met are saying they had to investigate, even though it came to nothing, but why a dawn raid?

Aren't they for violent offenders or smack heads? Catch them asleep before they can grab their guns or flush the stash down the toilet.

But two nonagenarians? "Quick, get the cuffs on before they turn nasty and use the shooters."

Pulpstar · January 2016

rcs1000 said:
There's something very curious about this current equity sell off.

Pretty much every market in every developed country is down almost exactly the same amount in US dollars.

S&P500 -10%
NASDAQ -12%
Eurostoxx -11%
FTSE -12%
CAC -11%
DAX -12%
IBEX -12%

I don't think I've ever seen this degree of correlation. Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.

Where is the value though

taffys · January 2016

''I don't think I've ever seen this degree of correlation. Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.''

Markets seem to be entirely disregarding the boon that low oil prices will be to many businesses.

runnymede · January 2016

'but why a dawn raid'?

It excites them.

MarqueeMark · January 2016

rcs1000 said:
There's something very curious about this current equity sell off.

Pretty much every market in every developed country is down almost exactly the same amount in US dollars.

S&P500 -10%
NASDAQ -12%
Eurostoxx -11%
FTSE -12%
CAC -11%
DAX -12%
IBEX -12%

I don't think I've ever seen this degree of correlation. Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.

Bloody herds...

Richard_Nabavi · January 2016

CD13 said:
On the Lord Bramall investigation ... I can understand why the Met are saying they had to investigate, even though it came to nothing, but why a dawn raid?

Aren't they for violent offenders or smack heads? Catch them asleep before they can grab their guns or flush the stash down the toilet.

But two nonagenarians? "Quick, get the cuffs on before they turn nasty and use the shooters."

They had to ensure there was no possibility of destroying 30-year old evidence... or something equally bonkers.

Charles · January 2016

MarkHopkins said:

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:
Michael Crick
And Axelrod's firm charged Labour $65,000 a month from Jan to April as consulting fees https://t.co/h1bIn5r3i3

Golly Labour were taken for patsies.
That seems like a very modest fee, tbh!

My team has just been paid $1.5m for 7 months work.
Ahh. But did your client win?

I solved a problem for them, and they were very happy.

Plato_Says · January 2016

Tony Blair is more popular than Jeremy Corbyn. You can almost hear the moonbats sob. https://t.co/VHnFArmvl6

Pong · January 2016

FrancisUrquhart said:

Plato_Says said:
This is just bizarre

Arj Singh
Poppers have emotional benefits in LGBT relationships through facilitating intimacy- Tory Mike Freer. But won't vote with Labour against ban

Don't heterosexuals get the same?
Also, are we not missing the massive point here. Poppers are being proactively defended here for "facilitating intimacy" in gay community, but what about other drugs?

Why is this being discussed?

Does someone want to ban them or something?

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

CD13 said:
On the Lord Bramall investigation ... I can understand why the Met are saying they had to investigate, even though it came to nothing, but why a dawn raid?

Aren't they for violent offenders or smack heads? Catch them asleep before they can grab their guns or flush the stash down the toilet.

But two nonagenarians? "Quick, get the cuffs on before they turn nasty and use the shooters."

Well also they aren't going to leg it anywhere are they. Also, the chances of them having evidence in their house about crimes that they may or may not have committed 30-40 years ago, very slim. By very slim I mean absolutely zero. Even if they were a kiddie fiddler (and it seems the plod aren't exactly doing very in finding them), after all publicity over Saville and other cases, if you did have a dodgy photo or video from back in the day, you would have destroyed ages ago wouldn't you.

But then the Met were doing the same to all the journos. And that wasn't required either. The likes of the 3am girls are hardly known as violent thugs. But it makes them look like they are doing something.

Anorak · January 2016

FrancisUrquhart said:

Plato_Says said:
This is just bizarre

Arj Singh
Poppers have emotional benefits in LGBT relationships through facilitating intimacy- Tory Mike Freer. But won't vote with Labour against ban

Don't heterosexuals get the same?
Also, are we not missing the massive point here. Poppers are being proactively defended here for "facilitating intimacy" in gay community, but what about other drugs?

Rohypnol?

Sorry. Leaving now.

taffys · January 2016

Potential changes to the Dublin Convention have hit the mainstream...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3407556/Blackmail-Fury-EU-tells-Britain-Agree-quote-migrants-barred-deporting-thousands.html

flightpath01 · January 2016

Plato_Says said:
That's entirely true of Indy ComRes leading questions, but not sure it's fair on the rest of the polling.
Charles said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:
As I said a couple of days ago I suspect the pollsters themselves were nervous about the quality of their data and their samples, particularly the internet pollsters. They were unsure whether the "adjustments" they were making were correct or sufficient to make good the initial problem. With such uncertainty the centre of the pack is the place to aim for.

On reflection it amazes me that internet polling is still being done. Why?
it's cheap
But not necessarily value for money.
Newspapers want copy. No one cares if it right or not.

Savage indictment of newspapers though isn't it. And people still have the nerve to complain about all the press complaints business and 'press controls'.
The press are universally crass and only interested in publishing self serving rubbish and to suit their own agenda. Truth comes a long way second and all papers of all colours and stripes are the same.

williamglenn · January 2016

runnymede said:
'but why a dawn raid'?

It excites them.

Overtime?

Charles · January 2016

rcs1000 said:
Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.

Cash (where I've been lurking since November)

SimonStClare · January 2016

First they came for the poppers, then the party hats, then the jelly.- PC world gone mad..!

rcs1000 · January 2016

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:
Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.
Cash (where I've been lurking since November)

If it was Yen, then you've done very well.
But Sterling has been pretty shockingly weak against the USD and the Euro.

MaxPB · January 2016

rcs1000 said:
There's something very curious about this current equity sell off.

Pretty much every market in every developed country is down almost exactly the same amount in US dollars.

S&P500 -10%
NASDAQ -12%
Eurostoxx -11%
FTSE -12%
CAC -11%
DAX -12%
IBEX -12%

I don't think I've ever seen this degree of correlation. Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.

Gilts. Yields are down 20bp for 10y since last month. US 10y paper is also down about 20bp compared to a month ago.

Philip_Thompson · January 2016

On topic I can blame the pollsters, it is dishonest and makes a mockery of their profession. They should have a set methodology that is locked in stone (or EdStone) prior to the start of the official campaign and any changes to methodology during the campaign should be regarded as completely improper.

In addition it should be determined whether a poll is to be published before it is commissioned. To determine whether to publish it or not based on whether you like the results it gave or not is also completely improper. Release with a caveat if you are not confident.

Have your methodology posted up-front, determine whether you will publish or not up-front then do the work and publish the outcome whatever it may be.

Charles · January 2016

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:
Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.
Cash (where I've been lurking since November)
If it was Yen, then you've done very well.
But Sterling has been pretty shockingly weak against the USD and the Euro.

This is my sterling portfolio which I use for sterling liabilities.

I am structurally long the USD, so have been doing fine on that side as well, thank you for asking

Pulpstar · January 2016

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:
Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.
Cash (where I've been lurking since November)
If it was Yen, then you've done very well.
But Sterling has been pretty shockingly weak against the USD and the Euro.

The pound has gained lost about 8% against the Euro since November.

Sorry I'm on the other side of this by proxy, £ gaining to 1.4 was pretty horrendous in 2015.

dr_spyn · January 2016

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 27s28 seconds ago
Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"

Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.

Scott_P · January 2016

@paulwaugh: Senior Labour source warns Trident Commons vote wd be purely "symbolic" + suggests cd be reversed by a Corbyn govt https://t.co/SleIsNPMEH

MaxPB · January 2016

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:
Usually somewhere is the safe have to which everyone runs.
Cash (where I've been lurking since November)
If it was Yen, then you've done very well.
But Sterling has been pretty shockingly weak against the USD and the Euro.
The pound has gained about 8% against the Euro since November.

No it hasn't?

Edit: just seen you corrected it!

oxfordsimon · January 2016

Scott_P said:
@paulwaugh: Senior Labour source warns Trident Commons vote wd be purely "symbolic" + suggests cd be reversed by a Corbyn govt https://t.co/SleIsNPMEH

Of course it could... but as that is never going to happen, the vote will have real effect.

Charles · January 2016

Just to clarify, I took on my structural USD position at a blended rate between 1.75 and 1.78.

Is there an emoticon for "smug git"?

dr_spyn · January 2016

The search of the Ed Stone invoices goes on.

FrancisUrquhart · January 2016

dr_spyn said:
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 27s28 seconds ago
Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"

Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.

Awkward...

Philip_Thompson · January 2016

dr_spyn said:
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 27s28 seconds ago
Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"

Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.

Is it just me or is the idea of something higher than "top secret" a bizarre use of the English language?

Charles · January 2016

Philip_Thompson said:

dr_spyn said:
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 27s28 seconds ago
Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"

Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
Is it just me or is the idea of something higher than "top secret" a bizarre use of the English language?

It's like grade inflation, in'nit.

Think of it like an A* grade.

(Technically it's called Top Secret - Special Access Protocol)

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If indeed it was “herding” who can blame the pollsters?

Comments