|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2023 19:40:00 GMT
Polish parliamentary elections today. More important than may once have been the case for obvious reasons. From the polls it looks like right populist PiS under PM Mateusz Morawiecki and party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski will remain in power with reduced support but will be interesting to see how far Donald Tusk's Civic Platform are able to close the gap. It's been a predictably nasty campaign with PiS relying on stoking anti German feeling among it's bears of little brain supporters by referring toTusk as 'the German' (he has some German heritage and was known to be close to Merkel) the implication being that somehow through working closely with Germany Polish sovereignty would not be safe in his hands. Same old fear filled isolationist crap we hear from populists everywhere. To be fair the Poles have had quite a few bad experiences with Germany over the years, so some people will be a bit wary of them. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2023 19:42:35 GMT
RafwanBecause Labour have never exaggerated anything at an election This from the 2019 general election The Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising, a “non-partisan” group “set up by practitioners in the [advertising] industry” carried out its own review of online adverts put out by political parties in the campaign. They found several examples of Labour party advertising “that appeared to transgress”. Full Fact say “Labour’s online ad campaign has featured multiple instances of misleading or exaggerated claims”. FactCheck also found a number of questionable claims from Labour over the course of the campaign. For example, the idea that the Conservatives would strike a deal with the US giving “£500m a week to big drugs companies”, or the claim that Labour’s manifesto was “fully-costed”. A number of the prominent Labour MPs said that Labour adverts had been found 100% true this was of course 100% a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2023 19:43:07 GMT
grahamThanks very interesting report.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2023 19:44:35 GMT
domjgPis apparently have insufficient possible partners to form government while Tusc can apparently achieve a majority
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Oct 15, 2023 19:50:47 GMT
Rafwan Because Labour have never exaggerated anything at an election This from the 2019 general election The Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising, a “non-partisan” group “set up by practitioners in the [advertising] industry” carried out its own review of online adverts put out by political parties in the campaign. They found several examples of Labour party advertising “that appeared to transgress”. Full Fact say “Labour’s online ad campaign has featured multiple instances of misleading or exaggerated claims”. FactCheck also found a number of questionable claims from Labour over the course of the campaign. For example, the idea that the Conservatives would strike a deal with the US giving “£500m a week to big drugs companies”, or the claim that Labour’s manifesto was “fully-costed”. A number of the prominent Labour MPs said that Labour adverts had been found 100% true this was of course 100% a lie. Hehe. Well, steve, that is of course (to coin a phrase) a load of bollocks. Over here, we don’t believe a word of it …! All LibDem delusion. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2023 20:04:17 GMT
Wow! Wales leading Croatia 2-0.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 15, 2023 20:04:32 GMT
I'm just saying that even before they invade Gaza, Israel has already justified whatever might result by saying the inhabitants are animals who need to be dealt with as animals. Yes and they are wrong to claim that, same way as you are wrong to claim any justification for Hamas in cold blood murdering children and babies, there is no justification Its funny then how most of the critical events of human history turn on people deciding bloodshed is the correct course. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 15, 2023 20:06:48 GMT
Danny being a real arse at the moment. Why does he feel the need to give us reams of his provocative nonsense on this complex and sensitive subject. As ever, just looking for attention. because I think there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in the world. Unpleasant truths people like to close their eyes to. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 15, 2023 20:13:38 GMT
You do have a strange take on history - i.e. incorrect reformjudaism.org/history-jewish-immigration-israel-aliyah"...nearly one quarter of a million Jews entered Mandate Palestine between 1929 and the beginning of World War II. This group of immigrants included professionals, doctors, lawyers and artists. They created a thriving art and architecture scene, and with the establishment of the Port of Haifa, a thriving economy. Most arrived prior to 1936, when the British began imposing harsh restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result of increasing anger and violence in the Palestinian Arab community. In 1939, the British issued the White Paper of 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration, leaving many European Jews during the Holocaust with nowhere to go. Illegal immigration, though dangerous, became a necessity. By the time the United Nations agreed to split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, a very well ordered and lively Jewish society had been created there." So the brits first let in Jewish settlers, which pissed off the Arabs. Then because the arabs were in revolt, they stopped letting in jews and so pissed off the jews as well. Brilliant strategy. I dont see how your account is disagreeing with mine? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 15, 2023 20:16:25 GMT
The problem then I suppose is the level of which Israel feels it needs to be a primarily Jewish state. It was of course formed primarily as a refuge for the Jewish people and yet has in many cases shown itself since it's founding to be remarkably good at multi-culturalism as it hosts reasonable numbers of non Jewish immigrants as well the fifth of it's native population who are Arabic speakers. Would it matter if 40% of the population were Arabs instead of almost 20%, would that fundamentally alter the nature of the 'Jewish state'? Perhaps, but not in a negative way, I'd say. Bearing in mind that before the immigration nstarted the entire area was only 15% jews, perhaps you can see why are miffed to have become the minority in their own country? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2023 20:45:16 GMT
Spain beat Norway, so "We're going to German-ee" (where we probably will still fail to get out of the group!)
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,563
|
Post by neilj on Oct 15, 2023 20:48:53 GMT
Spain beat Norway, so "We're going to German-ee" (where we probably will still fail to get out of the group!) Scotland have been playing well, confidence man, confidence |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2023 20:53:53 GMT
You do have a strange take on history - i.e. incorrect reformjudaism.org/history-jewish-immigration-israel-aliyah"...nearly one quarter of a million Jews entered Mandate Palestine between 1929 and the beginning of World War II. This group of immigrants included professionals, doctors, lawyers and artists. They created a thriving art and architecture scene, and with the establishment of the Port of Haifa, a thriving economy. Most arrived prior to 1936, when the British began imposing harsh restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result of increasing anger and violence in the Palestinian Arab community. In 1939, the British issued the White Paper of 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration, leaving many European Jews during the Holocaust with nowhere to go. Illegal immigration, though dangerous, became a necessity. By the time the United Nations agreed to split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, a very well ordered and lively Jewish society had been created there." So the brits first let in Jewish settlers, which pissed off the Arabs. Then because the arabs were in revolt, they stopped letting in jews and so pissed off the jews as well. Brilliant strategy. I dont see how your account is disagreeing with mine? (sigh) You're shifting your ground again, as you often do in your interminable debates with alec. This was what you originally said: "Britain sowed the wind by inviting Europeans to settle in palestine and created conflict in a country with a small jewish minority which was at peace with itself. Had we not done this the area would today be just another arab country." Palestine wasn't part of the Empire, we were given a mandate by the League of Nations to try to manage it, as an experienced imperial power. It wasn't a closed country so there was immigration. Even before the war Britain tried to slow down or prevent the Jewish influx because of the trouble it was causing. This is pretty much the opposite of what you said originally (quoted above). I am not going to get into a months-long debate about it. so won't be saying any more on the subject (to you at least). |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2023 21:01:22 GMT
Hosts out of World Cup. Monumental game in Paris, won by the Springboks by the tightest of margins; one point.
England the Northern Hemisphere's last bet yet again.
Owen's boys trundle on. Can they ambush South Africa next weekend?
My £10 flutter on them still in play. Come on Les Rosbifs.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 15, 2023 21:17:58 GMT
crossbat11 - I read a rather dumb Guardian journo this weekend suggesting that by Sunday night, the northern hemisphere teams could have shut out the south from the semis entirely. Now, probably the weakest of the northern teams are the only ones left, and I'm sorry, but England will be totally steamrollered by SA next week. They are nowhere near good enough, and are only in the semis thanks to a ludicrously unbalanced draw. The Ireland/NZ and France/SA matches were worthy of the final. The SA/NZ final could be good though, although I have a suspicion SA will end up comfortable winners and the spectacle will end up being much less intense than these two remarkable matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 15, 2023 21:50:50 GMT
Hosts out of World Cup. Monumental game in Paris, won by the Springboks by the tightest of margins; one point. England the Northern Hemisphere's last bet yet again. Owen's boys trundle on. Can they ambush South Africa next weekend? My £10 flutter on them still in play. Come on Les Rosbifs. Such an intense game. France allowed their artistry to overcome their discipline. Too many knock-ons after breaking through SA defensive lines. Although SA's resilience was truly astonishing, it's such a shame to see the French go out. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 15, 2023 21:53:52 GMT
Spain beat Norway, so "We're going to German-ee" (where we probably will still fail to get out of the group!) Well done to Scotland. Both Spain v Scotland on Thursday and Norway v Spain today involved some contentious VAR decisions. Fortunately, the best 2 teams in the group have qualified. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2023 21:54:18 GMT
crossbat11 - I read a rather dumb Guardian journo this weekend suggesting that by Sunday night, the northern hemisphere teams could have shut out the south from the semis entirely. Now, probably the weakest of the northern teams are the only ones left, and I'm sorry, but England will be totally steamrollered by SA next week. They are nowhere near good enough, and are only in the semis thanks to a ludicrously unbalanced draw. The Ireland/NZ and France/SA matches were worthy of the final. The SA/NZ final could be good though, although I have a suspicion SA will end up comfortable winners and the spectacle will end up being much less intense than these two remarkable matches. You may be right but the capricious nature of sport, its inherent unpredictability, is what makes it so watchable. Form suggests South Africa will beat England next week, but England were all but written off against the All Blacks ahead of the semi-final in 2019, yet prevailed. Accordingly, I give them a puncher's chance next week. The team contains some wily old warriors and England teams often get under South Africa's skin and unsettle them. The game is not the foregone conclusion you claim it to be. Not in my view anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Oct 15, 2023 22:09:19 GMT
crossbat11 - I read a rather dumb Guardian journo this weekend suggesting that by Sunday night, the northern hemisphere teams could have shut out the south from the semis entirely. Now, probably the weakest of the northern teams are the only ones left, and I'm sorry, but England will be totally steamrollered by SA next week. They are nowhere near good enough, and are only in the semis thanks to a ludicrously unbalanced draw. The Ireland/NZ and France/SA matches were worthy of the final. The SA/NZ final could be good though, although I have a suspicion SA will end up comfortable winners and the spectacle will end up being much less intense than these two remarkable matches. You may be right but the capricious nature of sport, its inherent unpredictability, is what makes it so watchable. Form suggests South Africa will beat England next week, but England were all but written off against the All Blacks ahead of the semi-final in 2019, yet prevailed. Accordingly, I give them a puncher's chance next week. The team contains some wily old warriors and England teams often get under South Africa's skin and unsettle them. The game is not the foregone conclusion you claim it to be. Not in my view anyway. As an England supporter I'd love them to win it. But as rugby supporter it'd be a bit of a travesty. They're 4 teams far superior to England in this competition (Ireland, France, SA, New Zealand) and plenty the equal of them. I'd like the best team left to win, so go SA. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 15, 2023 22:10:23 GMT
So think about it - all that political punters have to go on is the same past electoral history, newspapers reports, rumour, speculation and - if they are lucky - the occasional opinion poll that people on this site have access to. In fact in this context we probably are people with "expert knowledge". And yet most of us expected Labour to win Uxbridge and so did the betting markets - Labour 1/10, Conservatives 11/2 as I posted the other day. I can see that "highly sophisticated statistical analysis" of previous markets might well work for the stock market (which is a form of gambling) where there are millions of daily transactions but for a one-off parliamentary by-election it is just so much hokum. There is no point continuing this discussion - there is plenty of scientific research available on all kinds of betting markets, including political, if you are interested - it's a fascinating subject. Edit: PS  The posters on this site are the equivalent of the average punter on the gee-gees who thinks he has an edge but in reality loses steadily in the long term. In the meantime the professional punters either a) have inside knowledge on a particular event or b) understand how betting markets work and use it to their advantage. Quote it, and since psephology is my real thing (not polling) I'll show you why its nonsense. I've spent 40 years studying the subject so I'm more than an average punter - which is why I never bet on elections! |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2023 22:10:47 GMT
johntel
Maybe the Tories have nobbled the Lib Dem candidate in Mid-Beds and despite her impressive performances in previous outings, most recently winning the Davey Maiden Stakes at Huntingdon, the professional punters have inside knowledge that she will be doped to the eyeballs come polling day.
This accounts for the shortening of the odds on a Tory win as the professional punters, already aware of what will happen on Thursday, scramble to place money on the well trained and in form Tory candidate.
The Labour candidate has already been got at and will go easy in terms of trying to win.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 15, 2023 22:14:10 GMT
You may be right but the capricious nature of sport, its inherent unpredictability, is what makes it so watchable. Form suggests South Africa will beat England next week, but England were all but written off against the All Blacks ahead of the semi-final in 2019, yet prevailed. Accordingly, I give them a puncher's chance next week. The team contains some wily old warriors and England teams often get under South Africa's skin and unsettle them. The game is not the foregone conclusion you claim it to be. Not in my view anyway. As an England supporter I'd love them to win it. But as rugby supporter it'd be a bit of a travesty. They're 4 teams far superior to England in this competition (Ireland, France, SA, New Zealand) and plenty the equal of them. I'd like the best team left to win, so go SA. The Ireland v SA, France v NZ, Ireland v NZ and France v SA games were played at a far higher level than anything else we have seen. England and Argentina are in the Semis only due to the draw. But then the semis will be a one off game so who knows? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Oct 15, 2023 22:15:15 GMT
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/15/humza-yousaf-quells-snp-rebellion-independence-strategy-compromise"Humza Yousaf has quelled a rebellion by Scottish National party MPs by agreeing to a compromise with his critics over his independence strategy. The party’s annual conference in Aberdeen decided that if the SNP wins a majority of Scotland’s Westminster seats at the general election, it will have the mandate to negotiate independence with the UK government. After a rebellion that intensified after Labour’s byelection victory in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, the SNP leader dropped his original proposal, set out in June, that the party only needed to win more seats than the next largest Scottish party to win that mandate. He and Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, took the sting out of the revolt by adopting an amendment tabled by seven senior MPs and several constituency parties that sets a higher target, that the SNP wins at least 29 of Scotland’s 57 Commons seats." It would have no meaning - and carry no weight - beyond the SNP itself. If the UK government ignored SNP demands when the party had 56 MPs in 2015 - or 48 MPs in 2019 - why should it take notice of circa 29 MPs likely to have been supported by well under 40% of those who voted at the GE in Scotland? It is not an argument which Westminster would take at all seriously.
Still, I suppose that a party that doesn't accept that the leader speaks ex-cathedra, might appear rebellious to some party conference goers. (I don't know whether Jim Finlayson got his coffee, but even if he didn't, he would have been pleased that the party leadership adopted the clarification as to what the mandate would entail.
While ardent UK Unionists would much prefer that independistas simply recognised that Westminster had all the power, under all circumstances and just went away and didn't bother their silly heads (whether pretty or otherwise) with anything that Westminster politicians rejected, it remains the case that around half of the Scots electorate would vote for independence.
Since the Supreme Court ended the generally held consensus that Scotland had the right to determine its own future, we are now in a new era. How best to reassert that right, and achieve the goal, is the area of discussion.
You are quite correct to point out that Westminster politicians ignored Scots MPs when all but 2 were elected on an indy platform. Without pressure from outwith the UK, they are unlikely to change. It is rather parochial thinking to see everything in terms of internal UK matters. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2023 22:23:26 GMT
Pete
Maybe all this "may the best chaps win" is a bit of a rugger thing that is beyond my ken. I'm much more a round ball man at heart, and know that game far better, but I do follow most sports, especially when global tournaments are taking place
I'm partial to teams that find ways to win and do so without any fancy dan fanfare. I'm sceptical of, and innately resistant to, media "favourites" and being told who "deserves to win" matches and competitions.
If England find a way of winning this tournament, and it's a way that is an anathema to the game's purists, then that will be something to celebrate in my eyes.
I have a soft spot for the Greece football team that won the 2004 European Championships European for similar reasons.
Aesthetes often irritate me when it comes to professional sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 15, 2023 22:38:17 GMT
As an England supporter I'd love them to win it. But as rugby supporter it'd be a bit of a travesty. They're 4 teams far superior to England in this competition (Ireland, France, SA, New Zealand) and plenty the equal of them. I'd like the best team left to win, so go SA. The Ireland v SA, France v NZ, Ireland v NZ and France v SA games were played at a far higher level than anything else we have seen. England and Argentina are in the Semis only due to the draw. But then the semis will be a one off game so who knows? I love the final qualification, pj. At least Alec was certain in predicting England's inevitable comeuppance against South Africa next week! Actually your qualification rather makes my point about the essence of tournament sport, especially at the knock out stages. Every game is a one-off now. Previous games and form an irrelevance. England won their group and progressed. They also won their first one off game. Now definitely one to go, maybe two. They're still at the table, rolling the dice. France, Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland aren't. Sob stories about difficult draws and hard luck tales of heroic defeats in epic games are mere sour grapes. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2023 22:42:33 GMT
crossbat11Absolutely. The best team in a given competition is the one that wins it. In any sport it's not just about flair and skill, but also tenacity, fighting spirit and so on. Those latter two seem particularly important in rugby. Like you I know more about cricket and football, and those sports are littered with individuals and teams who never achieved much despite looking good. For instance footballers like Rodney Marsh, cricketers like Stuart Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 15, 2023 23:32:19 GMT
@pj and @ll For example here's an interesting research paper: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207018300852?via%3DihubTo quote- "But when are prediction market prices most informative? We answer this question by studying a rich dataset from the now-defunct prediction market Intrade. We analyse every transaction on U.S. elections (at both the national and state levels) between 2008 and 2012. Crucially, the data include anonymised trader identification. We then marry this data with information on poll releases from Gallup, the oldest polling firm in the U.S., which allows us to examine both trader activity in the hours surrounding poll releases — who traded and how much — and the effect of this activity on the accuracy, or efficiency, of prices". All that says is that gamblers react to polls. So it is the polls that have a scientific basis and should prove accurate, not the betting. There have been no recent polls released on Mid Beds, therefore any movement in the betting odds is based on people placing bets on a 'gut feel' of what may be happening. 'Gut feel' has no basis in fact and is as likely to be wrong as right in a close contest. I am somewhat amazed that on a site dedicated to opinion polling on the basis of stratified sampling quite so many people seem to take gambling odds seriously. What the bookies have going for them is the need to make money - at least over time, even if they don't call every bet correctly. That's as true for elections as anything else. Whilst there may not have been any *official* recent polls, that's not to say they haven't been able to gather any sense from their own research, even if as simple as taking to canvassers. Yes, "gut feel" has no basis in fact, but will be reacted upon by the bookies changing rates to cover themselves, such that whatever the result they will still make a profit. They hope. And what no one can do anything about are unforeseen circumstances. Voter intention changing during a campaign, possibly due to a candidate making a big gaffe. So whilst the bookies favourite doesn't always win, it should be seen as a pretty good best guess at any point in time. But we'll see? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Oct 15, 2023 23:50:33 GMT
lens "Whilst there may not have been any *official* recent polls, that's not to say they haven't been able to gather any sense from their own research, even if as simple as taking to canvassers. Yes, "gut feel" has no basis in fact, but will be reacted upon by the bookies changing rates to cover themselves, such that whatever the result they will still make a profit. They hope." Having written software for bookies I can assure you that apart from setting initial odds research, gut feel and so on don't enter into it. It is purely a mathematical calculation to make money. If a lot of money goes on one runner, whether it's a horse, a politician or whatever, they will cut the odds to discourage future bets at least until they've 'laid it off' by putting a bet to cover themselves with another bookie. It must be very difficult nowadays when they all have instant access to what odds they are all offering. That's why I bet on one of the exchanges where punters bet against each other. It's far easier to outwit them. Anyway, the point is that odds alter on a particular event according to the weight of money put on and for no other reason. They could represent a lot of small bets therefore indicating the 'wisdom of crowds' which is usually pretty accurate, but if some rich idiot comes along and plonks a load of money on a particular result because he likes the horse's name, or the politician's tie, the odds will be distorted.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2023 5:21:54 GMT
David Lammy tying himself in knots and trying to defend war crimes because Keir Starmer , who as a human rights lawyer knows better, wouldn't criticise Israel for their siege of the Gaza strip, which is contrary to international law. The siege as reached the point that hospitals in Gaza have just 24 hours of fuel left , after which thousands of their patients will die. Being the vanilla extract party to avoid upsetting the hard of thinking for electoral purposes is one thing undermining the basic concept of a party that purportedly believes that laws of behaviour should apply to all is entirely different. youtu.be/6T5QMg1D3Z4?si=T6KTYLHg6n8nj1m4 |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,563
|
Post by neilj on Oct 16, 2023 5:32:39 GMT
RAF"Although SA's resilience was truly astonishing, it's such a shame to see the French go out" Yes I was so upset I couldn't sleep last night 😀
|
|
The posters on this site are the equivalent of the average punter on the gee-gees who thinks he has an edge but in reality loses steadily in the long term. In the meantime the professional punters either a) have inside knowledge on a particular event or b) understand how betting markets work and use it to their advantage.