Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 15:38:38 GMT
Mr Poppy "Hopefully it's clear why I ignore a lot of people for 'time wasting'" I thought that was what the site was for? š¤Ø All to do with 'freedom of choice' old bean. Clearly a lot of the regulars on UKPR2 have spare time which can be time they choose to 'waste' (eg on a pointless waste of time such as the Prescott 'two jabs' thing; writing/replying to essays on Covid; 'Carry on Moaning' about Brexit; etc). However, it is for each person to choose how they spend their spare time and I choose to not waste my time with the people who are IMO 'time wasters'* As well as UKPR2 and the twitterverse** then I recommend golf and perhaps when I get to your age perhaps chess.  * Covered my view on that before but the non-exhaustive short list: people who seem unable to use google and think I'm their 'gopher'; people who misrepresent my posts or otherwise engage in 'trolling' (supposedly against the 'rules' but all to do with interpretation?); people obsessed with stuff very few people care about (and seem unable to use the Issue Specific threads); people that Mark has specifically told me not to engage with; etc. ** I admit to a fascination with the Far-Left corner of the 'twitterverse' and their hatred for Starmer and 'NewLABv2'. I've seen plenty of 'Blue-on-Blue' kerfuffles but the LW (xLW in many cases) v RW of LAB stuff is in a different league and well into pure hatred of each other. I'm backing the 'Right' side in that fight, but still find it interesting (IMO) to follow what the 'wrong' side are posting about. A lot of it is total drivel or mildly amusing 'crayon' stuff but some interesting 'research' that they dig up about Starmer-LAB from time to time. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 15:46:27 GMT
PS The Far-Left of twitterverse do like their crayons but I can answer on behalf of Starmer+co. 'Red rosettes' innit and after 13yrs of Blue* Tories then a change of primary colour for the Tory party in power is about time * Pedants can point out that 5/13ths of that was in coalition with Orange Tories and that 10/13ths was when UK was still in the EU. Sadly in the last few years we've had a series of crises and as per polling in most polities then voters blame the incumbents. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 21, 2023 15:50:09 GMT
wb61 As you're around, what's your view on whether the then management of the hospital could be prosecuted? Sorry but I should not offer an opinion. I can comment on the law in a general way or on concluded cases and the results, but because of my current role commenting on a specific case which may be brought would not be appropriate. What I can say is that Corporate Manslaughter is an offence pursuant to Section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. That requires proof of a gross breach of a duty of care. It used to be the case that the prosecution had show that a person who was the ācontrolling mindā of the organisation was personally responsible for the offence, that was abolished but corporate manslaughter based on gross negligence is still a notoriously difficult charge to prove because of the high threshold to prove liability. The corporate body would not be liable if a junior level of management is exclusively responsible for the failings which amount to a breach of duty. The failings of senior management must have formed a substantial element in the breach. However, the failings at senior management level do not of themselves have to amount to a gross breach of the duty of care to prove the offence the organisation as a whole must be considered. However because the defendant is a corporate body, the penalty must be a fine the DPP would have to give some thought would have as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute just to move public money from one budget to another, and the fact that there is to be an inquiry would probably be put in the balance there. I typed 'opinion' at first but changed to 'view' because I think opinion has a particular meaning in law. Anyway, thanks very much. Appreciated. It's a shame that they can't be held personally responsible if I've understood it right. In my 'view' and with virtually no legal knowledge I think that whoever sent her back onto the ward should be guilty of aiding and abetting a murderer. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Aug 21, 2023 15:52:30 GMT
Mark Pack on MRP and whether swing in the GE is likely to be uniform or proportional. theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or Mark Pack makes a good point that there were two MRP polls published just before the 2017 General Election. One, for Lord Ashcroft, was wildly wrong; the other by YouGov for The Times was very close to the actual result. Because confirmed predictions get more publicity more than wrong predictions, the story in the media was about how good the YouGov MRP model was (whereas they may have just been lucky in their choice of parameters). In their 2019 GE MRP poll (4-10/12/2019) YouGov got overall vote shares pretty close to the actual result, but their seat totals were well out (Con 311-367, Lab 206-256 both 95% confidence ranges) The actual result was Con 365, Lab 202 so just around the 95% confidence range limits. He also mentions Owen Winter's study of a particular MRP poll owenwinter.co.uk/2021/01/03/whats-up-with-the-sunday-times-mrp-projection/Again a MRP poll which produced some odd results when drilled down to constituency level, which Owen thinks may have been due to overfitting. The problem with MRP polls is that the methodology used to create them, while transparent at the highest level is quite opaque at the detailed level as Justin Ibbett says in response on Twitter Yep this is likely to be the case and is a known problem with MRP (over smoothing and regularisation, being too pulled to the last result). 2019 individual vote will drive the model (for obvious reasons). We canāt adjust those parameters values as theyāre learned from the data
So now we are approaching another GE and we can expect more MRP polls which, by their nature, will be also affected by the 2019 vote. We need to be aware of this and treat MRP polls with caution. Thanks for that, LL. It is interesting to read Pack's views, but a little disappointing that he does not offer a conclusion on the question as to whether uniform Swing or Proportional Swing will prove more accurate. He does make a couple of mistakes, though. The 2017 Lord Ashcroft MRP was released on 12 May 2017, so all fieldwork must have predated that. The polling average around then was an 18% Conservative lead, and indeed a YouGov with fieldwork of 11-12 May also showed the Tories 18% ahead. Given that YG's final polls averaged around a 4% Consevative lead, it appears that there was a swing of around 7% to Labour between the Ashcroft MRP and election day. So it cannot be judged as 'wrong' any more than other polls from around that time, and for Pack to cite this as a failure of MRP shows a lack of attention to detail. lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_electionI would also dispute his (and Kellner's) claim that UNS has been accurate in previous GB General Elections. What we have seen in recent elections has been huge local variance in swings at seat level, as voting patterns have changed. I shared on the 'Will labour get an overall majority' thread the huge movements in the targets for a lab majority from 2005 to 2019, but I think these are worth repeating. Post-General Election implied target-leads for a Labour majority: 2005 -1% 2010 2% 2015 9% 2017 7% 2019 12% So this target has shifted hugely at recent elections - whereas if our elections were governed by UNS this figure would stay constant. And it is very likely to shift again at the next GE - probably to a much lower figure, as the 'brexit effect' wares off. The only historic election we have had with a really large swing (1997) saw a 'semi-proportionate' outcome, with the Conservatives faring noticably worse where they were defending. By my calculations, they lost caround 40-50 more seats in that election than UNS predicted, and this involved losing around 3% more of their vote share in their safe seats than UNS implied. He's right to say that we should treat at least some MRPs with caution, and in particular those with small samples. Less than 10,000 is not enough, and even with 50,000 (as per the YouGov pre-election MRPs) some very localised trends cannot be picked up. And there have been some truly awful MRPs in the past year-or-two: I recall one from Focaldata which showed disastrous results for the SNP and Plaid, as they had failed to calculate churn separately for Wales or Scotland. And there have been others which appear not to involve looking at the different dynamics of LibDem seats (or targets). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,709
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2023 15:59:00 GMT
Jayne Doherty
Self identification.
"Jayne Doherty
@jayneb64
She/Her. Socialist, republican, anti-racist, atheist, Evertonian. Fuck centrist wreckers, blue tick liberals & MSM. Socialism is the solution āš¼"
So I wonder which Jeremy Corbyn she's a fan of!
Trevor must be sent these by Tory lie central otherwise imagine how much time he must spend trawling the nether regions of social media to dig up such utter cobblers.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 21, 2023 15:59:23 GMT
No idea whether it was relevant but, at the end of a long and hard tournament it doesnāt see right that one team should have a full dayās recovery time less than their opponent. Why not aim to play the semi-finals on the same day so that the difference is then only a matter of limited hours? Having the semi-finals on consecutive evenings in the men's World Cup means two lucrative TV windows instead of one. Same as the witless third place playoff got invented just to ensure the losing semi-finalists were on TV a second time, and made an extra TV window the night before the final. I suspect they've just copied the format. I agree that the third place play-off in world cups is pretty pointless, but since it has been played at every men's world cup since 1934 it clearly wasn't invented for television. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 15:59:33 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 16:08:38 GMT
Hope everyone is well this morning. In terms of the next GE, while it is rare these days to find someone who doesn't think Labour will win the next GE, it seems equally so in regards to finding people who think a Labour govt will be able to change things for the better. My own anecdotal experience, from talking to friends and family, is that there is nowhere near the level of anticipation and positive expectation that was present prior to the '97 victory. This lack of enthusiasm and relative pessimism appears to be present across all ages.
My personal view is that we are likely to see one of the lowest turnouts ever at the GE, the net beneficiary being Labour. While Lab leaning voters are motivated by a desire to get the Tories out, I think there is evidence to indicate than many Con '19 VI may sit on their hands come election day. Combined with some '17 Lab VI who switched to Con in '19 returning to Lab and a greater degree of ABT voting, this will give Starmer his victory. Whether he is able to secure a 2nd GE victory, only time will tell; however, I genuinely believe our relative economic decline can realistically only be mitigated by re-joining the EU, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Blair was blessed with a positive economic outlook for most of his premiership - Starmer will be faced with the reverse. Just FWIW then R&W ask that specific question in a polling with a 'representative sample' of gen.pub. From their latest polling then:
"34% of respondents believe a Labour Party majority would be the most likely outcome if a General Election were held in the next six months. A further 10% expect a Labour-led minority Government. 21% expect a Conservative Party majority, while another 11% expect a Conservative-led minority Government"
Attachment Deleted
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 21, 2023 16:11:32 GMT
As a public service, Redwood and Wilton without the tedious trolling.
Labour 42%
Conservative 27%
Liberal Democrat 13%
Reform UK 7%
Green 6%
Scottish National Party 3%
Other 1%
The Governmentās net competency rating stands at -24% this week. Altogether, 23% find the Government competent, while 47% find the Government incompetent.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of -18%. Yesterdayās poll finds 29% approving of his overall job performance against 47% disapproving.
Labour leader Keir Starmerās net approval rating stands at +12%. 39% approve of Starmerās job performance, while 27% disapprove.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Aug 21, 2023 16:15:32 GMT
To be fair Buzz Aldrin did it better than Prescott:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2023 16:16:56 GMT
Just FWIW then R&W ask that specific question in a polling with a 'representative sample' of gen.pub. From their latest polling then:
"34% of respondents believe a Labour Party majority would be the most likely outcome if a General Election were held in the next six months. A further 10% expect a Labour-led minority Government. 21% expect a Conservative Party majority, while another 11% expect a Conservative-led minority Government"
View Attachment
Did you read the Blairite article in the In Times today by Philip Collins.? He writes :- "Where are the interesting proposals on immigration, the innovations on education, childcare and health? Where are the intriguing approaches to those generational questions that tie together the large property-rich cohort in need of social care and their home-seeking grandchildren? Where are the debates about shifting the burden of taxation away from earned income onto idle wealth? There is so little intellectual imagination on questions of statecraft." Not just about Starmer , but LOC governments of the day. Says lack of fiscal headroom is the key problem for Starmer, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-looks-lost-in-plans-for-government-without-money-to-spend-9wcrxftsr |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Aug 21, 2023 16:18:16 GMT
wb61As you're around, what's your view on whether the then management of the hospital could be prosecuted? I've no idea whether or not such a prosecution is possible, but if I was the parent of a child concerned, I think I'd probably feel more anger towards the management than towards Letby herself. I suspect she has some mental illness which caused her to behave as she did, and possibly a secure institution is a more appropriate place to keep her than an ordinary prison. Whereas the management solely acted out of a desire to avoid scandal at any cost. Were they really so blind that a cover up was worth risking babies lives? Or so arrogant as to believe they knew better than all the front line doctors? Unfortunately, the "cover it up" and deny all mentality is far too widespread. It's not the first time similar has happened in the NHS, and then there's the BBC...... |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 21, 2023 16:20:00 GMT
Jayne Doherty Self identification. "Jayne Doherty @jayneb64 She/Her. Socialist, republican, anti-racist, atheist, Evertonian. Fuck centrist wreckers, blue tick liberals & MSM. Socialism is the solution āš¼" So I wonder which Jeremy Corbyn she's a fan of! Trevor must be sent these by Tory lie central otherwise imagine how much time he must spend trawling the nether regions of social media to dig up such utter cobblers. The voice of irrelevant extremism. Much the same sort of raging at the world that can be found on the Far Right, but thankfully we haven't got an endless bore sharing such garbage on this forum. For what it's worth, I think the Trevor account is very likely to be something set up by a form of organised political activism on the Right. It could be linked to the Tory Party or an offshoot. An attempt to destabilise, propagandise and ruin political discussion forums thought to be left-leaning. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,709
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2023 16:32:53 GMT
sheviiIt might have been better if you used another source regarding the Buzz Aldrin clip The man getting in his face isn't a " lib loon" he's Bart Sibrel a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been spouting utter garbage about the " faked" moon landings for decades. The author of the clip Oliver McGee was a born again republican convert who died in 2020. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand regards the toddler traitor as a moron. Here's a clip of his pained expression when the then president was displaying his public stupidity. www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/jul/03/buzz-aldrin-faces-trump-speech-space-video
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,709
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 21, 2023 16:39:21 GMT
I fact check Trevor's garbage so you don't have to.
You're welcome š
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Aug 21, 2023 16:41:18 GMT
shevii It might have been better if you used another source regarding the Buzz Aldrin clip The man getting in his face isn't a " lib loon" he's Bart Sibrel a notorious conspiracy theorist who has been spouting utter garbage about the " faked" moon landings for decades. The author of the clip Oliver McGee was a born again republican convert who died in 2020. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand regards the toddler traitor as a moron. Here's a clip of his pained expression when the then president was displaying his public stupidity. www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/jul/03/buzz-aldrin-faces-trump-speech-space-video As far as I can tell he's quoting what the "interviewer" was saying and I thought the tweeter was pro Buzz. It was the best full video I could find on twitter as the clipped ones didn't have the full obnoxiousness of the conspiracy theorist. Edit- no you're right about the tweeter. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 21, 2023 16:42:09 GMT
Not sure this has been aired, but an interesting report on gender splits in party affiliations -
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 21, 2023 16:52:19 GMT
More evidence here of the burden society (and the poor individuals) will face from long covid - fortune.com/2023/08/21/long-covid-shorter-life-new-research-reveals-arduous-road-to-recovery-carolyn-barber/While vaccines do reduce the incidence of LC, the impact isn't as big as many had hoped, and repeated waves of infection will unfortunately trigger the condition in growing numbers of people. There are, as yet, no cures. We know that victims of Sars1 still suffer from most likely permanent symptoms today, nearly two decades later, and this longevity of negative health impacts is a noted feature of the known Sars viruses, not seen in other families of coronaviruses. This is why comparison to other human coronaviruses is unwise for covid. I'd also suggest that anyone thinking they've had covid a couple or three times, so they're not an LC risk should take a step back. Evidence is now emerging that LC is more likely to strike after infection 3 or 4 (not got enough data on 5 and above yet) and very recently we've also had a couple of papers that found that repeat infections are more likely to lead to severe outcomes (and death) than the first infection. Long way to go yet on this, I think. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 16:56:43 GMT
Just FWIW then R&W ask that specific question in a polling with a 'representative sample' of gen.pub. From their latest polling then:
"34% of respondents believe a Labour Party majority would be the most likely outcome if a General Election were held in the next six months. A further 10% expect a Labour-led minority Government. 21% expect a Conservative Party majority, while another 11% expect a Conservative-led minority Government"
View Attachment
Did you read the Blairite article in the In Times today by Philip Collins.? He writes :- "Where are the interesting proposals on immigration, the innovations on education, childcare and health? Where are the intriguing approaches to those generational questions that tie together the large property-rich cohort in need of social care and their home-seeking grandchildren? Where are the debates about shifting the burden of taxation away from earned income onto idle wealth?There is so little intellectual imagination on questions of statecraft." Not just about Starmer , but LOC governments of the day. Says lack of fiscal headroom is the key problem for Starmer, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-looks-lost-in-plans-for-government-without-money-to-spend-9wcrxftsrLoC govts such as Denmark are tackling immigration with 'zero asylum' policies (and watching what happens with UK's Rwanda scheme as they hope to copy that). We've covered the European approach to healthcare (ie get the rich out of the 'free' queue by making them pay for private rather than them clogging up the NHS 'money pit' queue) but everyone is dealing with the aftershocks of Covid and UK has a particular problem with a militant union making matters worse. Biden has been chucking money around (much of which I approve of, but it has been inflationary) On the highlighted point then some of Starmer's 10 pledges lies covered some of that and as I've stated I'm now LoS (Left of Starmer) as IMO 'rent seeking' income should be taxed as high/higher than 'earned income' and I note it was CON HMG who hiked corporation tax to close to what Corbyn-McDonnell wanted to do. I'd oppose hiking the top rate of income tax and any/all 'wealth' taxes but they are LoC options. In UK we no longer have a UK wide major LoC party (although the Greens are LoC IMO so could fill that gap) Whilst I respect the need for fiscal discipline then sensible/green 'investment' would pay for itself and mitigate some very expensive future costs (but needs a change in the fiscal rules) and money can be found from some targeted taxes (eg as well as higher CGT on BTL and unearned income, I'd also increase VAT on 'sin' stuff, hike fuel duty, widen+deepen ULEZs, reform IHT, etc). I'm also increasing vexed by BoE's 'rear view mirror' approach to rate hikes and 'active' QT and would welcome a political debate about changing BoE's mandate (although given Reeves used to work there I doubt she'll speak up) I'm not falling for the 'no money left' lie-n. IIRC then Greg Hangs is mocked for still using that from when Tory Plan A took over from Plan B back in 2010. That is not to say decisions aren't tougher than when Blair-Brown were chucking money around during the NICE decade and I largely agree with the article WRT to lack of intellectual policy making. The article makes some good points but just leaves me  about how incredibly narrow political discourse has become in UK. Whilst I never wanted Corbyn as PM then as we saw with the hike in corporation tax then he had 'influence' on HMG policy. We currently have a zombie HMG and a brain dead opposition. Frankly it's a bit shit and hence why some folks have pointed out the likelihood of low turnout in GE'24. Dumb or dumber - or DNV. PS I'd add the need to scrap the triple lock and decouple benefits from inflation as well with the 'savings' from that going to a further reduction in the Universal Credit earnings taper rate (noting CON have already done that once) and raising the thresholds for income tax bands (although I accept that a 1-2p cut in the basic rate will sound 'sexier' as a pre-GE sweetener). We need to make 'work' pay better and that does mean 'non-work' will have to come off indexation. Might need some 'targeted' stuff, more means testing, etc. Trickier one is the one I'm benefiting most on - higher annuity rates and the excessive amount per year that can be stashed into a pension (as they are a disincentive to work - hence the amount of spare time I have!) PPS House prices are coming down a bit and with wages rising quite fast then that 'inter-generational' problem is getting a bit better (or at least less worse) but it will take many more years to fix and with the big builders now sitting on their land banks then we urgently need housing and planning reform (but not building on green belt). |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 21, 2023 17:17:59 GMT
Mark Pack on MRP and whether swing in the GE is likely to be uniform or proportional. theweekinpolls.substack.com/p/mrp-what-it-is-and-why-it-may-or Mark Pack makes a good point that there were two MRP polls published just before the 2017 General Election. One, for Lord Ashcroft, was wildly wrong; the other by YouGov for The Times was very close to the actual result. Because confirmed predictions get more publicity more than wrong predictions, the story in the media was about how good the YouGov MRP model was (whereas they may have just been lucky in their choice of parameters). In their 2019 GE MRP poll (4-10/12/2019) YouGov got overall vote shares pretty close to the actual result, but their seat totals were well out (Con 311-367, Lab 206-256 both 95% confidence ranges) The actual result was Con 365, Lab 202 so just around the 95% confidence range limits. He also mentions Owen Winter's study of a particular MRP poll owenwinter.co.uk/2021/01/03/whats-up-with-the-sunday-times-mrp-projection/Again a MRP poll which produced some odd results when drilled down to constituency level, which Owen thinks may have been due to overfitting. The problem with MRP polls is that the methodology used to create them, while transparent at the highest level is quite opaque at the detailed level as Justin Ibbett says in response on Twitter Yep this is likely to be the case and is a known problem with MRP (over smoothing and regularisation, being too pulled to the last result). 2019 individual vote will drive the model (for obvious reasons). We canāt adjust those parameters values as theyāre learned from the data
So now we are approaching another GE and we can expect more MRP polls which, by their nature, will be also affected by the 2019 vote. We need to be aware of this and treat MRP polls with caution. Thanks for that, LL. It is interesting to read Pack's views, but a little disappointing that he does not offer a conclusion on the question as to whether uniform Swing or Proportional Swing will prove more accurate. He does make a couple of mistakes, though. The 2017 Lord Ashcroft MRP was released on 12 May 2017, so all fieldwork must have predated that. The polling average around then was an 18% Conservative lead, and indeed a YouGov with fieldwork of 11-12 May also showed the Tories 18% ahead. Given that YG's final polls averaged around a 4% Consevative lead, it appears that there was a swing of around 7% to Labour between the Ashcroft MRP and election day. So it cannot be judged as 'wrong' any more than other polls from around that time, and for Pack to cite this as a failure of MRP shows a lack of attention to detail. lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_electionI would also dispute his (and Kellner's) claim that UNS has been accurate in previous GB General Elections. What we have seen in recent elections has been huge local variance in swings at seat level, as voting patterns have changed. I shared on the 'Will labour get an overall majority' thread the huge movements in the targets for a lab majority from 2005 to 2019, but I think these are worth repeating. Post-General Election implied target-leads for a Labour majority: 2005 -1% 2010 2% 2015 9% 2017 7% 2019 12% So this target has shifted hugely at recent elections - whereas if our elections were governed by UNS this figure would stay constant. And it is very likely to shift again at the next GE - probably to a much lower figure, as the 'brexit effect' wares off. The only historic election we have had with a really large swing (1997) saw a 'semi-proportionate' outcome, with the Conservatives faring noticably worse where they were defending. By my calculations, they lost caround 40-50 more seats in that election than UNS predicted, and this involved losing around 3% more of their vote share in their safe seats than UNS implied. He's right to say that we should treat at least some MRPs with caution, and in particular those with small samples. Less than 10,000 is not enough, and even with 50,000 (as per the YouGov pre-election MRPs) some very localised trends cannot be picked up. And there have been some truly awful MRPs in the past year-or-two: I recall one from Focaldata which showed disastrous results for the SNP and Plaid, as they had failed to calculate churn separately for Wales or Scotland. And there have been others which appear not to involve looking at the different dynamics of LibDem seats (or targets). Even ignoring Lord Ashcroft's MRP polling, both YouGov (see my original comment) and Focaldata (fieldwork 27/11-10/12) were well out in 2019; although I have only seen the central prediction for Focaldata it was practically the same as YouGov's central prediction. YouGov sampled over 105,000 and Focaldata over 21,000 in 2019. If over 100,000 is not enough to produce reliable seat predictions, then it brings into question the point of MRP. Would it be better to do samples of 1000 in 100 constituencies (or 2000 in 50 constituencies)? EDIT: Looking at recent MRPs the worst is probably the FindOutNow (27/1/23-5/2/23) that put the Tories on 45 seats in third place behind the SNP (and that on a sample of 28,000). It just never passed the smell test, even though it made some good newspaper headlines. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 21, 2023 17:28:34 GMT
Not sure this has been aired, but an interesting report on gender splits in party affiliations - Perhaps women relate to Starmer but not the far-left like Corbyn? I thought that Blair did a great deal for women with his all-woman shortlists to get more of them into Parliament. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2023 17:30:53 GMT
Jayne Doherty Self identification. "Jayne Doherty @jayneb64 She/Her. Socialist, republican, anti-racist, atheist, Evertonian. Fuck centrist wreckers, blue tick liberals & MSM. Socialism is the solution āš¼" So I wonder which Jeremy Corbyn she's a fan of! Trevor must be sent these by Tory lie central otherwise imagine how much time he must spend trawling the nether regions of social media to dig up such utter cobblers. The voice of irrelevant extremism. Much the same sort of raging at the world that can be found on the Far Right, but thankfully we haven't got an endless bore sharing such garbage on this forum. For what it's worth, I think the Trevor account is very likely to be something set up by a form of organised political activism on the Right. It could be linked to the Tory Party or an offshoot. An attempt to destabilise, propagandise and ruin political discussion forums thought to be left-leaning. Well it must be effective because Iāve been converted - and I donāt even read it.  |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,477
|
Post by neilj on Aug 21, 2023 17:37:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by catmanjeff on Aug 21, 2023 17:41:41 GMT
wb61 As you're around, what's your view on whether the then management of the hospital could be prosecuted? I've no idea whether or not such a prosecution is possible, but if I was the parent of a child concerned, I think I'd probably feel more anger towards the management than towards Letby herself. I suspect she has some mental illness which caused her to behave as she did, and possibly a secure institution is a more appropriate place to keep her than an ordinary prison. Whereas the management solely acted out of a desire to avoid scandal at any cost. Were they really so blind that a cover up was worth risking babies lives? Or so arrogant as to believe they knew better than all the front line doctors? Unfortunately, the "cover it up" and deny all mentality is far too widespread. It's not the first time similar has happened in the NHS, and then there's the BBC...... Just a few thoughts on this tragic incident. Of course, ultimately the crimes were committed a bad/mentally ill/deranged human being. Can we stop such people from becoming nurses? I think very likely no. You would need crawl inside the head of literally hundreds of thousands of people, and probably still not detect what drove someone to commit the crimes. The super advanced and deep vetting would not work, IMO. This is why I think trying to understand the motivations of the killer is almost pointless, and would not help to stop another instance. It's like asking what made the Yorkshire Ripper or Dennis Nilsen who they were. They were organic human beings, where environment end external influences met genetic factors in an impossibly complex way. For me, the main issues are of detection, system failure and flawed assumptions. After the first deaths, it appears that Letby was potentially implicated in being a factor. Surely, a reasonably risk-based approach would suggest that the best things would a) some sort of immediate suspension and b) bringing in the police and/or some external experts who could review the evidence available quickly. The management from what I see did not act correctly at the metaphorical dashboard flashing an alert. Next, it seems that it the management considered it to be inconceivable that a nurse could do this. Flawed assumptions. This is quite natural, as most people instinctively want to trust those working around them. History shows that medical staff have killed patients, albeit in rare instances. The priority of the management system seemed more tilted to reputational defence, rather than patient safety. Jeremy Hunt's book 'Zero' is quite good at describing this culture. In summary, the crimes were committed by one person, but the management system and culture allowed her to continue. I hope the real lessons are learned, and it doesn't become 'look at the monster'. that will fix nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Aug 21, 2023 18:01:56 GMT
leftieliberal "Even ignoring Lord Ashcroft's MRP polling, both YouGov (see my original comment) and Focaldata (fieldwork 27/11-10/12) were well out in 2019; although I have only seen the central prediction for Focaldata it was practically the same as YouGov's central prediction. YouGov sampled over 105,000 and Focaldata over 21,000 in 2019. If over 100,000 is not enough to produce reliable seat predictions, then it brings into question the point of MRP. Would it be better to do samples of 1000 in 100 constituencies (or 2000 in 50 constituencies)?" YouGov's polling for their 2019 MRP was not too bad, but still somewhat inaccurate. In vote shares, they had Con 2.1% low at 42.6% and Lab 0.8% high at 33.8% (they also had LDs 0.7% high). Because of this, they were out by a 1.45% swing, and the Tories won 21 seats with a less than 2.9% margin (so within such a swing). if you adjust for this relatively small polling error using the actual results, it turns a further 21 seats Conservatives, so that YouGov's central prediction of 339 seats for the Tories would become 360 seats. d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/uk714vkjy3/MRP_Tables_2019_Election_Public_Release%20(5).pdf So it was this polling error which was the main cause of the inaccuracy in YG's central estimate. Another way to look at this is that if they had got the vote shares absloutely right, YouGov would probably still have underestimated the Tories by 5 seats, and the SNP by 7 seats, while overestimating Labour by about 8, and the LDs by 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Aug 21, 2023 18:08:24 GMT
Jayne Doherty Self identification. "Jayne Doherty @jayneb64 She/Her. Socialist, republican, anti-racist, atheist, Evertonian. Fuck centrist wreckers, blue tick liberals & MSM. Socialism is the solution āš¼" So I wonder which Jeremy Corbyn she's a fan of! Trevor must be sent these by Tory lie central otherwise imagine how much time he must spend trawling the nether regions of social media to dig up such utter cobblers. The voice of irrelevant extremism. Much the same sort of raging at the world that can be found on the Far Right, but thankfully we haven't got an endless bore sharing such garbage on this forum. For what it's worth, I think the Trevor account is very likely to be something set up by a form of organised political activism on the Right. It could be linked to the Tory Party or an offshoot. An attempt to destabilise, propagandise and ruin political discussion forums thought to be left-leaning. I'd love to know your conspiracy theory about the Danny account please Batty? |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 18:21:04 GMT
The voice of irrelevant extremism. Much the same sort of raging at the world that can be found on the Far Right, but thankfully we haven't got an endless bore sharing such garbage on this forum. For what it's worth, I think the Trevor account is very likely to be something set up by a form of organised political activism on the Right. It could be linked to the Tory Party or an offshoot. An attempt to destabilise, propagandise and ruin political discussion forums thought to be left-leaning. I'd love to know your conspiracy theory about the Danny account please Batty? I suppose I should be flattered that so many people read my posts (notably the retweets of left leaning people who are perhaps viewed as 'irrelevant extremists' by RW-LAB) Clearly no one is paying any attention to Mark's recent request - notably Mark himself! ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/96530/threadLike everyone on this forum then Danny is entitled to his opinion and it is for anyone else to choice whether or not to read his posts or engage with him if they want to. Please don't encourage even more trolling from the trolls, even if they clearly have a lot of spare time and choose to spend it trolling. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 21, 2023 18:24:30 GMT
For what it's worth, I think the Trevor account is very likely to be something set up by a form of organised political activism on the Right. It could be linked to the Tory Party or an offshoot. An attempt to destabilise, propagandise and ruin political discussion forums thought to be left-leaning. Most unlikely. Just like most other accounts on here it reads like a single individual (I don't believe the 'collective' story) pushing their particular interests/obsessions in a not very subtle way (there are a few honourable exceptions who mainly post about polling. I'm not one of them ). It so happens that the propaganda lines currently in use are quite close to those being followed by Tory Central Office, but that hasn't always been the case. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Aug 21, 2023 18:33:30 GMT
Re the gender gap in British politics. A bit of checking suggests to me that the present pattern of women being more supportive of Labour has been around for close to 20 years. But it appears to have gone unnoticed. The last time that Labour did better with men than women was at GE2001, when it was 42/32 with men and 42/33 with women - per Ipsos Mori analysis, first link below. In 2005, Ipsos recorded a 34/34 tie with men and a Labour lead of 38/32 with women. So a 6-point gap there. This appears to have been the norm ever since. In 2010, the Tories led by 38/28 with men and 36/31 with women - a 5 point gap. 2015 was a slightly odd one, as the figures are distorted by UKIP faring much better with men than women (by 15% to 12%). As a result, both Con and Lab did better with women than men. Men voted by 37/29 for the Tories and women 38/33, so a 3-point difference - or 6 points on a 'Lab v Con+UKIP' comparison. Labour has fared 6 points better than the Conservatives with women than men per youGov's analysis of both GE2017 and GE2019. So the recent YouGov polling showing a 7-point gap should not be any great surprise. www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2001www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2005www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2010(further links - YG analysis of GEs 2015-2019 - in my post on this subject yesterday, page 40) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 21, 2023 18:58:53 GMT
Polling on tax rates. It's somewhat complicated by 'allowances'* and 'thresholds' but IMO it is fair to say that currently tax rate is higher on income from employment than income not from employment and whilst there is a bit of partisan split then plurality pick 'same' (I'd lean to 'higher rate' myself but with a lot of 'nuance' that splits out 'rent seeking' non-employment from 'good' investments) * EG CON HMG have been quietly reducing the absolute level of CGT allowance (which is even greater when the 'stealth' element is added). www.lovewell-blake.co.uk/news/capital-gains-tax-changes-a-summary#However, the rate is the 'low hanging fruit' for LAB to go after and they can differentiate between types of asset (eg BTL/2nd homes get whacked at 'marginal rate of income tax' where as 'green/societal good' investments benefit from a lower rate) |
|
about how incredibly narrow political discourse has become in UK. Whilst I never wanted Corbyn as PM then as we saw with the hike in corporation tax then he had 'influence' on HMG policy. We currently have a zombie HMG and a brain dead opposition. Frankly it's a bit shit and hence why some folks have pointed out the likelihood of low turnout in GE'24. Dumb or dumber - or DNV. 
