Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What I’m hoping to tell the House of Lords next week about the

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What I’m hoping to tell the House of Lords next week about the polling fail at the general election

A week today I’ll be travelling to Westminster where I have been invited to give evidence before the House of Lords Committee that’s carrying out a review of what went wrong with GE2017 polls.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,322
    No need to show up now, just send them this url
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,530

    No need to show up now, just send them this url

    Their lordships will not be best pleased that Mike decided to air his deposition in public before addressing them.

    Luckily they don't read PB.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    surbiton said:

    No need to show up now, just send them this url

    Their lordships will not be best pleased that Mike decided to air his deposition in public before addressing them.

    Luckily they don't read PB.
    You know that? No member of HoL is posting or lurking?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,579
    edited October 10
    surbiton said:

    No need to show up now, just send them this url

    Their lordships will not be best pleased that Mike decided to air his deposition in public before addressing them.

    Luckily they don't read PB.
    How can he do that if he is unaware of the questions he will be asked?

    As far as I'm aware there is no requirement to have the HOL as the first or only point for dissemination.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    I think the real question for the polling industry is whether they were wrong from the start or whether they were caught out by a late swing as people had increasing reservations about giving May untrammelled power. If it was the former their incompetence seriously distorted our election creating a false narrative that influenced how people voted.

    As Mike points out the local election results indicated that the Tories were in a very strong position and the narrative at that time was all about how unbelievably useless Corbyn was and indeed is. But were the Tories ever 20% ahead? I really doubt it. For the second election in a row significant numbers of people voted on a false premise. It is a concern.
  • JonWallsJonWalls Posts: 1
    As well as the technical point on where the error came from, is there also a point to be made about public broadcasting and poll coverage? The mockery of what turned out to be the best analysis is remarkable.

    Should we make more of an effort to provide objective inquiry, rather than indulging in groupthink-driven mockery of accurate analysis? How many policy disasters have in part been caused by “he said/she said” reporting replacing a discussion of empirical evidence?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    JonWalls said:

    .

    Should we make more of an effort to provide objective inquiry, rather than indulging in groupthink-driven mockery of accurate analysis? How many policy disasters have in part been caused by “he said/she said” reporting replacing a discussion of empirical evidence?

    You're new here eh? Welcome. Objective analysis is indeed in short supply.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    edited October 10
    duplicate deleted
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,364

    surbiton said:

    No need to show up now, just send them this url

    Their lordships will not be best pleased that Mike decided to air his deposition in public before addressing them.

    Luckily they don't read PB.
    You know that? No member of HoL is posting or lurking?
    We haven't heard from JackW's ARSE in a while...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375
    Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    edited October 10
    JonWalls said:

    As well as the technical point on where the error came from, is there also a point to be made about public broadcasting and poll coverage? The mockery of what turned out to be the best analysis is remarkable.

    Should we make more of an effort to provide objective inquiry, rather than indulging in groupthink-driven mockery of accurate analysis? How many policy disasters have in part been caused by “he said/she said” reporting replacing a discussion of empirical evidence?

    Yup. People can have odd entrenched perceptions. Witness the story on the BBC about the lack of any evidence that a baby was saved by being thrown out of Grenfell Tower. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41550836
    And welcome from me, too.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928
    edited October 10
    Thread from a prominent but clear headed leaver..

    Disaster staring us in the face.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/917504922584780800
    The key point:

    13. So we *definitely* will lose all of our JIT manufacturing and we lose most of our 3rd country trade relationships overnight.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576

    surbiton said:

    No need to show up now, just send them this url

    Their lordships will not be best pleased that Mike decided to air his deposition in public before addressing them.

    Luckily they don't read PB.
    You know that? No member of HoL is posting or lurking?
    We haven't heard from JackW's ARSE in a while...
    Yes, concerning. Although didn’t someone...... RCS....... say he’d been tweeting recently?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,180
    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,928

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    What convinced me it might not be a disaster for Labour was seeing Labour posters in our village where I hadn't seen them before or since 1997. Not that many, but enough for evidence the vote had hardened.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576
    Like Recidivist I’ve been following elections for a long time and like him (?) was convinced the Tories were going to do very well. Indeed I was off to bed at 10pm.... we were going away the next morning,...... when my wife called me over to the TV and told me about the first rumours of the exit poll.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,375

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    What convinced me it might not be a disaster for Labour was seeing Labour posters in our village where I hadn't seen them before or since 1997. Not that many, but enough for evidence the vote had hardened.
    In Scotland the picture was more confused because the SLAB campaign was truly invisible in most parts I visited. It was the Tories that were making all the noise which seemed consistent with what the polling was saying nationally. Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,600
    edited October 10
    The Tory vote went up 6% and by 2.3 million votes(20%). It's hardly surprising they thought they were doing well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Good morning, everyone.

    Hope you have a nice time with their lordships, Mr. Smithson. Maybe it'll be Lord Smithson of Bedford soon? :p
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    DavidL said:

    Quite a positive story for the PM this morning with this racial audit. Makes a nice change but I think, like many people in fairness, she is better at identifying a problem than finding solutions. It will be interesting to see what she thinks she can do about what she has highlighted.

    There an interesting article by Rachel Sylvester on this in the Times today, which is quite generous towards Mrs May, suggesting that this is her passion, and her heart really isn't in delivering Brexit - let alone deciding what Brexit to deliver.
    I don't doubt the PM's goodwill, but take a rather less generous view of her ability to deliver social reform even in the absence of Brexit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident ...

    I'm not sure that's entirely true. The lamentable campaign came in for a deal of criticism from quite a few. There were certainly a large number of loud and confident predictions of victory, but I don't think doubt was ever entirely absent.
    (FWIW, I'd already got a small punt on a hung parliament a few days before David's last minute cry of desperation persuaded me to increase it.)
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 878
    DavidL said:

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    What convinced me it might not be a disaster for Labour was seeing Labour posters in our village where I hadn't seen them before or since 1997. Not that many, but enough for evidence the vote had hardened.
    In Scotland the picture was more confused because the SLAB campaign was truly invisible in most parts I visited. It was the Tories that were making all the noise which seemed consistent with what the polling was saying nationally. Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
    Heartily agree. The Scottish Labour executive had bought into the only source of information that they had from Westminster. Unfortunately, the source was only too sure of his own greatness. The executive were persuaded to keep the powder dry, and the cheque books closed, in preparation for the coming leadership election of the Labour Party, due in this autumn. The result was that the local clp's were left high and dry without resources and leadership. That Labour ended up with 7 MP's rather than 1, was a surprise. Finding out that there was so much latent support in other constituencies where Labour came second, I believe another 17, and then Corbyn came up and toured round the new marginals and found a lot of support that had been ignored for years by the executive in Glasgow..... The case for a change of leadership had become overwhelming....
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 233
    I read May's latest proposals last night and they seemed very reasonable. Have the EU voiced what their problem with it still is, or are they just rejecting it out of hand?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,936
    edited October 10
    The assumption that UKIP voters were all ex-Tories was widely made during the campaign, and a principal misjudgment that made the adjusted polls superficially credible. I remember several lively debates with PB'ers about this during the campaign. People also assumed the LDs would have to recover a bit from 2015

    The adjustments are the key - pollsters fighting the last war by trying to compensate for their mistakes the previous time, compounding the error when the bias came at them from a different direction this time.

    Previously, it you think there is a small bias in the polling, you can pitch your own estimate (bets) just the right side of the polling average, and you'd stand a 50/50 chance of coming out OK. This time, it was possible to see that the polls (ex Survation and the YG model) were were over-stating the Tories, as many of us did, and still come out horrendously wrong.

    The classic polling interview of the campaign was BBCDP when that boring guy who runs survation predicted the Tories would not get a majority, just a few days before the campaign. The other pollster, the presenter, guests, and I suspect almost all of the audience reacted as if he was insane, and didn't engage with the possibility at all.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,708
    Maybe one solution is to ban the publication of polling data for the last two weeks of the campaign?
  • alex. said:

    The Tory vote went up 6% and by 2.3 million votes(20%). It's hardly surprising they thought they were doing well.

    It was the increase in the Labour vote which was the surprise and something which Labour was not expecting.

    There turned out to be a lot of people angry about unaffordable housing and unpayable debt.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 719
    edited October 10
    I suspect that many people simply did not admit to voting with their wallets and that this had a cross-generational impact.

    Upon hearing of the social care proposals, granddad saw his savings disappearing, whilst his children and grandchildren saw their inheritances disappearing.

    Similarly, the prospect of student debt being written off, will have appealed to the student, the student's parents and the student's grandparents.
  • Remember folks it's not the headline poll lead that's important but the trend. And when the election was called the trend was clear - the Tories were ascendant. The locals have already been referred to, a very dark election from a Labour perspective. Shortly after the election was called my CLP received our orders from the regional director who told us she was in London (at head office). As Stockton South was not a target seat (Tory majority of 5,000) we were on our own, and should be ready to redeploy our activists for the required defence of seats like Hartlepool and Stockton North.

    I have to assume that these seats were shown as vulnerable by our internal polling. Similar ultra-defensive instructions were given by other regional directors to other constituencies - the internal Labour Party poll appears to have reflected the trend of the public polls going by the reaction from the party.

    Nor can we assume that the "Jeremy is crap isn't Theresa marvellous" narrative was a creation of the pollsters and the press. Yes of course they amplify it, but that narrative was already there, it was real and it was tangible - as those people campaigning during the local elections can testify. It was also a worrying trend in our first few weeks of the general - I remember our first door knocking session with our newly selected candidate. We took him to a 'heartland' estate in a pro-Labour ward. And even there heard the familiar horror story of I've voted Labour my whole life but won't vote for you because of Corbyn that Theresa May is doing alright.

    For me what changed is simple - it's the manifesto stupid. Ours offered people hope, the Tories offered even their own horror. And in the days that followed May fell apart and dragged the whole string and stable narrative with her - and that was all they had apart from "Jeremy is crap". And in the weeks that followed up to polling day the "I can't vote for you because Jeremy" brigade mostly decided to hold their nose and vote for us. And we used things like social media with brilliant effect to motivate the wanderers and the occasional voters. Tories appear to have also held their noses as their vote went up as well. So it's true that the early polls had the right trend of a whopping Tory lead and tracked the collapse of this lead post manifesto launches.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,092

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    It was very patchy. I was reporting back from a Tory/LibDem marginal in the SW. What we were seeing was very much in line with the polls - Tory vote holding up very well (even after the dementia tax), UKIP vote folding, LibDem second referendum stuff unpopular, Labour mopping up some LibDems and the Greens. But we had an exceptional result, as it turned out, raising the majority by 10,000. If that outcome had been replicated nationally, Theresa May would have had a 3-figure majority.

    What was more interesting was that the parties themselves seemed to be blind-sided by the polling too. The Tories should have never lost seats like Canterbury while they were fannying about trying to unseat Skinner in Bolsover. Labour candidates assumed they were going to get a shellacking, and often ran effectively as independents (see Ben Bradshaw in Exeter for an example).

    I would love to know what the party polling was saying.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,849
    Theresa May’s position looks safer than her critics would have you believe.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/why-isnt-theresa-mays-conference-catastrophe-showing-in-the-polls/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398

    Remember folks it's not the headline poll lead that's important but the trend. And when the election was called the trend was clear - the Tories were ascendant. The locals have already been referred to, a very dark election from a Labour perspective. Shortly after the election was called my CLP received our orders from the regional director who told us she was in London (at head office). As Stockton South was not a target seat (Tory majority of 5,000) we were on our own, and should be ready to redeploy our activists for the required defence of seats like Hartlepool and Stockton North.

    I have to assume that these seats were shown as vulnerable by our internal polling. Similar ultra-defensive instructions were given by other regional directors to other constituencies - the internal Labour Party poll appears to have reflected the trend of the public polls going by the reaction from the party.

    Nor can we assume that the "Jeremy is crap isn't Theresa marvellous" narrative was a creation of the pollsters and the press. Yes of course they amplify it, but that narrative was already there, it was real and it was tangible - as those people campaigning during the local elections can testify. It was also a worrying trend in our first few weeks of the general - I remember our first door knocking session with our newly selected candidate. We took him to a 'heartland' estate in a pro-Labour ward. And even there heard the familiar horror story of I've voted Labour my whole life but won't vote for you because of Corbyn that Theresa May is doing alright.

    For me what changed is simple - it's the manifesto stupid. Ours offered people hope, the Tories offered even their own horror. And in the days that followed May fell apart and dragged the whole string and stable narrative with her - and that was all they had apart from "Jeremy is crap". And in the weeks that followed up to polling day the "I can't vote for you because Jeremy" brigade mostly decided to hold their nose and vote for us. And we used things like social media with brilliant effect to motivate the wanderers and the occasional voters. Tories appear to have also held their noses as their vote went up as well. So it's true that the early polls had the right trend of a whopping Tory lead and tracked the collapse of this lead post manifesto launches.

    Yes and I still have your key post identifying the situation so accurately (short of a Lab win, that is).

    My view? Yes it was the manifestos and, like the drunk looking under the lamppost for the keys he dropped a mile away, the electorate preferred the light of hope than the darkness of despair.

    No matter how unlikely they knew deep down it was that they would actually get the puppies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Elliot, it seems the EU remains upset that they're demanding money and want us to come up with how much we owe. It's bloody bizarre. If they think we owe money then they should be able to provide a figure and explain why it's that particular number.

    Instead they expect us to invent a debt to pay them.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,295
    Mr Smithson should be telling Westminsterr that Pollsters are not to be trusted as far as their results are concerned.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,099
    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362
    My 2P. Lots of people had a partial view of the election. But no-one managed to stitch the whole picture, because each part of the puzzle was easy to question.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    Theresa May’s position looks safer than her critics would have you believe.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/why-isnt-theresa-mays-conference-catastrophe-showing-in-the-polls/

    Safe, but impotent.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362
    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.
  • Remember folks it's not the headline poll lead that's important but the trend. And when the election was called the trend was clear - the Tories were ascendant. The locals have already been referred to, a very dark election from a Labour perspective. Shortly after the election was called my CLP received our orders from the regional director who told us she was in London (at head office). As Stockton South was not a target seat (Tory majority of 5,000) we were on our own, and should be ready to redeploy our activists for the required defence of seats like Hartlepool and Stockton North.

    I have to assume that these seats were shown as vulnerable by our internal polling. Similar ultra-defensive instructions were given by other regional directors to other constituencies - the internal Labour Party poll appears to have reflected the trend of the public polls going by the reaction from the party.

    Nor can we assume that the "Jeremy is crap isn't Theresa marvellous" narrative was a creation of the pollsters and the press. Yes of course they amplify it, but that narrative was already there, it was real and it was tangible - as those people campaigning during the local elections can testify. It was also a worrying trend in our first few weeks of the general - I remember our first door knocking session with our newly selected candidate. We took him to a 'heartland' estate in a pro-Labour ward. And even there heard the familiar horror story of I've voted Labour my whole life but won't vote for you because of Corbyn that Theresa May is doing alright.

    For me what changed is simple - it's the manifesto stupid. Ours offered people hope, the Tories offered even their own horror. And in the days that followed May fell apart and dragged the whole string and stable narrative with her - and that was all they had apart from "Jeremy is crap". And in the weeks that followed up to polling day the "I can't vote for you because Jeremy" brigade mostly decided to hold their nose and vote for us. And we used things like social media with brilliant effect to motivate the wanderers and the occasional voters. Tories appear to have also held their noses as their vote went up as well. So it's true that the early polls had the right trend of a whopping Tory lead and tracked the collapse of this lead post manifesto launches.

    But there were contrary results in your area with good Conservative performances in BA and MSEC compared to their failure in Stockton.

    And Stockton S was not out of line compared to 2010 - it was 2015 which was the shock there.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 478
    edited October 10

    Thread from a prominent but clear headed leaver..

    Disaster staring us in the face.


    https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/917504922584780800

    The key point:

    13. So we *definitely* will lose all of our JIT manufacturing and we lose most of our 3rd country trade relationships overnight.
    The EU Ref vote, followed by invoking A50 and a determination to leave the Single Market, Customs Union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ/ECHR, is a declaration of contempt by the UK for all that the EU stands for and implies that the UK does not want to work with Europe according to their rules. It is the equivalent (without a military war) of refusing to co-operate with the 3rd Reich. Europe's leaders now regard the UK as an enemy despite any warm words. They will attempt to make Brexit as painful as possible economically for the UK, pour encourager les autres, and there can be no realistic expectation of any deal. They are also likely to promote Irish re-unification.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Jonathan, it's true many predictions (including my own were wrong) but unless you were claiming otherwise for Canterbury [and perhaps you were, I don't know] it seems a bit rough to knock the consensus position.

    We should learn from the past, but deriding honestly held and openly stated views smacks of being wise after the event.
  • The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    It was very patchy. I was reporting back from a Tory/LibDem marginal in the SW. What we were seeing was very much in line with the polls - Tory vote holding up very well (even after the dementia tax), UKIP vote folding, LibDem second referendum stuff unpopular, Labour mopping up some LibDems and the Greens. But we had an exceptional result, as it turned out, raising the majority by 10,000. If that outcome had been replicated nationally, Theresa May would have had a 3-figure majority.

    What was more interesting was that the parties themselves seemed to be blind-sided by the polling too. The Tories should have never lost seats like Canterbury while they were fannying about trying to unseat Skinner in Bolsover. Labour candidates assumed they were going to get a shellacking, and often ran effectively as independents (see Ben Bradshaw in Exeter for an example).

    I would love to know what the party polling was saying.

    The two parties seem to have been especially wrong about how London was voting. Likewise with heavily student areas such as Canterbury and Nottingham S.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 478
    edited October 10
    I reassured a former colleague that losing the Labour nomination for Crewe (he fought the seat in 2015) was a blessing in disguise, and he was not best pleased when his replacement won the seat by 48 votes!




  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,364
    Leics was hard to report in terms of anecdata as there were no marginals here (though Loughboro now is for next time). My experience doorknocking in Bosworth was not finding much enthusiasm. I was bearish on LD prospects before it became fashionable.

    I reported that the usual farmers signs were missing, but posters seem to be a thing of the past as I saw only 1 in the entire Brexit referendum, and that in the Isle of Wight.

    I thought no change to the Leics seats, and the Tory hopes of unseating Liz Kendall delusional.

    I plumped for a 45 seat Tory majority on the PB contest, as I was sure the Jezzasm a real phenomenon, but without much certainty.

    When I saw the exit poll, I believed it, and the evens on BF for about an hour allowed me to do a reverse ferret and come out slightly in the Green on the night, while many here mocked the exit poll.

    It was a tough election to call, but I do wonder if the best strategy in such volatile times is to bet on both ends of the possibilities, against an undeserved consensus. This would have worked well in our last two elections and in POTUS.

    No one trusts experts anymore!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,362

    Mr. Jonathan, it's true many predictions (including my own were wrong) but unless you were claiming otherwise for Canterbury [and perhaps you were, I don't know] it seems a bit rough to knock the consensus position.

    We should learn from the past, but deriding honestly held and openly stated views smacks of being wise after the event.

    I defended the poll at the time. The Tory hubrisometer was on overload, it was a clear bit of evidence. All the bits of the puzzle were there, most of us weren't listening, the rest were listening but didn't believe it
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,523

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    It was very patchy. I was reporting back from a Tory/LibDem marginal in the SW. What we were seeing was very much in line with the polls - Tory vote holding up very well (even after the dementia tax), UKIP vote folding, LibDem second referendum stuff unpopular, Labour mopping up some LibDems and the Greens. But we had an exceptional result, as it turned out, raising the majority by 10,000. If that outcome had been replicated nationally, Theresa May would have had a 3-figure majority.

    What was more interesting was that the parties themselves seemed to be blind-sided by the polling too. The Tories should have never lost seats like Canterbury while they were fannying about trying to unseat Skinner in Bolsover. Labour candidates assumed they were going to get a shellacking, and often ran effectively as independents (see Ben Bradshaw in Exeter for an example).

    I would love to know what the party polling was saying.

    Agreed. Here in Dorset, in a generally safe seat and a marginal, we saw swings to the Tories. Many first time voters saying they were supporting 'Theresa' though they'd never voted Tory before.

    It tallied exactly with the polls. Which, to be fair, tallied with the increased Tory vote. Mrs May was truly popular with the public; unfortunately she was also truly unpopular, and the whole narrative didn't do anything to discourage the voters of opponents.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....

    Perhaps it does - but there's no guarantee that such a response won't deliver a worse outcome than a degree of capitulation.
    If you believe that the EU is an inflexible, bureaucratic institution, then it seems wrong to expect pragmatism and/or realpolitik from them.

    In any event, the government seems equally divided between those who would attempt to purchase a settlement and those who favour the brusque response, while May attempts to find an impossible formula to satisfy both sides.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,872
    For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,523
    I had a long time in Edinburgh airport yesterday, so read the new VAT/Customs white paper.

    Eminently sensible from beginning to end. Recommend others interested read it too; especially those hyperbolists who think Britain is going to hell in a handcart.
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,903

    Maybe one solution is to ban the publication of polling data for the last two weeks of the campaign?

    1. Will never work - too many ways around it.
    2. What is it with 'Liberals' and banning things? Never heard of free expression?
  • AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 116

    Theresa May’s position looks safer than her critics would have you believe.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/why-isnt-theresa-mays-conference-catastrophe-showing-in-the-polls/

    Have you ever tried saying something surprising? Every post of yours is a variation on the theme of:

    A. The SNP are terrible; or

    B. May is marvellous.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644
    edited October 10
    Like others here I thought the Tories would win big, and spent half my time following orders and canvassing in the ultra-safe Nottingham seats; the other half went to Broxtowe to show support for my successor as candidate (who in the end nearly beat Anna Soubry, which I'm sure many Tories would have counted as a Tory gain).

    The manifesto - hope vs gloom - was a big thing, assisted by the Tory press leaking it and going on about how ludicrously and unrealistically generous it was - people felt OK, maybe only half of it will happen, but hell, that's still better than a dementia tax. Corbyn did enthuse the young to finally get out and vote, and reduced his negatives in older groups simply by calming hanging in there in the face of a hurricane of derision. And Momentum's activists cheerily shrugged off the polls and fought everywhere they were present, giving a ground game edge in unlikely places like Canterbury.

    The interesting question going forward is how to assess polls now. Are they now basing themselves on 2017 turnout, and is that realistic? We don't know. There is some evidence that once people have voted once they keep on doing so, so the youth surge shouldn't just vanish, but whether the new 18-23 range in 2022 will surge too, who knows? And if Brexit isn't milk and honey, what will that do to Tory turnout?
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    This place is interesting in many respects, what amazes me is that with a few measured exceptions the predictions on here are woeful. As I know from personal experience, in order to convince others you will win an election you have to first convince yourself. This site is full of people who have brainwashed themselves into believing their own nonsense and stating opinions as facts.

    It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 9,088
    edited October 10
    Mortimer said:

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    It was very patchy. I was reporting back from a Tory/LibDem marginal in the SW. What we were seeing was very much in line with the polls - Tory vote holding up very well (even after the dementia tax), UKIP vote folding, LibDem second referendum stuff unpopular, Labour mopping up some LibDems and the Greens. But we had an exceptional result, as it turned out, raising the majority by 10,000. If that outcome had been replicated nationally, Theresa May would have had a 3-figure majority.

    What was more interesting was that the parties themselves seemed to be blind-sided by the polling too. The Tories should have never lost seats like Canterbury while they were fannying about trying to unseat Skinner in Bolsover. Labour candidates assumed they were going to get a shellacking, and often ran effectively as independents (see Ben Bradshaw in Exeter for an example).

    I would love to know what the party polling was saying.

    Agreed. Here in Dorset, in a generally safe seat and a marginal, we saw swings to the Tories. Many first time voters saying they were supporting 'Theresa' though they'd never voted Tory before.

    It tallied exactly with the polls. Which, to be fair, tallied with the increased Tory vote. Mrs May was truly popular with the public; unfortunately she was also truly unpopular, and the whole narrative didn't do anything to discourage the voters of opponents.
    Corbyn offered hope and change to people the Conservatives had shat on for seven years.

    And they were right to think so.

    If there had been a big Conservative victory we wouldn't have seen the recent changes to student debt.

    By voting Labour en mass students have saved themselves over £10,000.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    edited October 10
    I am not really sure it was that mysterious. The polls could be broken down into those that favoured the red or blue teams. Much of the difference was in how they dealt with non-voters. A few days before the election, there was reported here academic evidence based on BES data that supported Yougov and Survation. I backed Labour and Conservative minority governments based on that (and Labour in some of the marginals).

    OGH could text that to their lordships and save the cab fare to Westminster.
  • Gadfly said:

    I suspect that many people simply did not admit to voting with their wallets and that this had a cross-generational impact.

    Upon hearing of the social care proposals, granddad saw his savings disappearing, whilst his children and grandchildren saw their inheritances disappearing.

    Similarly, the prospect of student debt being written off, will have appealed to the student, the student's parents and the student's grandparents.

    This is the most succinct and accurate appraisal of GE2017.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016

    Gadfly said:

    I suspect that many people simply did not admit to voting with their wallets and that this had a cross-generational impact.

    Upon hearing of the social care proposals, granddad saw his savings disappearing, whilst his children and grandchildren saw their inheritances disappearing.

    Similarly, the prospect of student debt being written off, will have appealed to the student, the student's parents and the student's grandparents.

    This is the most succinct and accurate appraisal of GE2017.
    No it isn't because it does not explain the polling. It is the old chestnut that my side was clearly on the side of the angels but greedy voters fell for the other lot's lies and bribes.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    Gadfly said:

    I suspect that many people simply did not admit to voting with their wallets and that this had a cross-generational impact.

    Upon hearing of the social care proposals, granddad saw his savings disappearing, whilst his children and grandchildren saw their inheritances disappearing.

    Similarly, the prospect of student debt being written off, will have appealed to the student, the student's parents and the student's grandparents.

    This is the most succinct and accurate appraisal of GE2017.
    No it isn't because it does not explain the polling. It is the old chestnut that my side was clearly on the side of the angels but greedy voters fell for the other lot's lies and bribes.
    Put simply- Grandad voted Tory and grandson voted Labour.
    So it's a horrible explanation of the election result.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,016
    Alistair said:

    For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.

    Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,092
    Jonathan said:

    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.

    What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,644
    edited October 10
    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter

    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,936

    I am not really sure it was that mysterious. The polls could be broken down into those that favoured the red or blue teams. Much of the difference was in how they dealt with non-voters. A few days before the election, there was reported here academic evidence based on BES data that supported Yougov and Survation. I backed Labour and Conservative minority governments based on that (and Labour in some of the marginals).

    OGH could text that to their lordships and save the cab fare to Westminster.

    Except that Survation claimed that they would have predicted a NOM outcome even using the turnout model of the other pollsters..?
  • eekeek Posts: 1,913

    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter

    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    What's being reported is far less than the stories elsewhere....
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 233
    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Palmer, I agree with you.

    I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,913

    Mr. Palmer, I agree with you.

    I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.

    The stories have been going round for years see various popbitch mailings....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398
    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
  • DublinerDubliner Posts: 36
    Nigelb said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response....

    Perhaps it does - but there's no guarantee that such a response won't deliver a worse outcome than a degree of capitulation.
    If you believe that the EU is an inflexible, bureaucratic institution, then it seems wrong to expect pragmatism and/or realpolitik from them.

    In any event, the government seems equally divided between those who would attempt to purchase a settlement and those who favour the brusque response, while May attempts to find an impossible formula to satisfy both sides.
    The problem appears to be a misinterpretation of the EU position. As far as |I'm aware the UK accepts that there will be some liabilities arising from its exit. The EU wants to know how the UK intends to calculate the the sums due. No amounts have (officially) been asked for or agreed.

    On the Border issue, the UK position is it wants control of its own borders, irrespective of any trade agreements. Again the EU position is to ask how the UK intends to establish that control.
  • Jonathan said:

    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.

    What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
    With Jim Messina offering a bet on YouGov being so wrong.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,382

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    This place is interesting in many respects, what amazes me is that with a few measured exceptions the predictions on here are woeful. As I know from personal experience, in order to convince others you will win an election you have to first convince yourself. This site is full of people who have brainwashed themselves into believing their own nonsense and stating opinions as facts.

    It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
    Canvassing can be utterly misleading. In the marginal constituency I worked in earlier this year, we got the highest Conservative vote in 25 years, and plenty of first time Tory voters. It didn't stop the Labour majority from more than doubling.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049

    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter

    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    I'm with you on this particular example, Nick, although as mentioned elsewhere there are apparently much more telling examples.

    It's a good job Romola never had to meet Churchill, who apparently would have meetings while he was in his bath!
  • Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
    Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 478
    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
    Exactly - it is the UK that has chosen to stick 2 fingers up at Europe, not Europe kicking the UK out of the EU.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Eek, indeed, but the way to establish guilt is through the courts, using facts and evidence. It isn't through allegations alone, as recent events in the UK have once again proved.

    Mr. Daodao/Mr. Topping, it's an intellectually vacant position to demand an exit bill but refuse to say what it should be.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587
    edited October 10

    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter

    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    Would you, as an MP, have interviewed a prospective (teenage female) intern in your hotel room, in your dressing gown ?

    I think the point of the story is that Garai is re-evaluating a meeting - and perhaps a narrow escape - that she had, in light of recent events. I don't think this played a part in his dismissal.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 233
    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
    If they're not willing to explain their concerns behind the British proposal, then it makes it very hard to collaborate to find a deal. Perhaps they don't want one, but let's see. May has extended the olive branch with compromise proposals twice now. Let's see whether they come in at all from their hard-line position.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    RoyalBlue said:

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    This place is interesting in many respects, what amazes me is that with a few measured exceptions the predictions on here are woeful. As I know from personal experience, in order to convince others you will win an election you have to first convince yourself. This site is full of people who have brainwashed themselves into believing their own nonsense and stating opinions as facts.

    It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
    Canvassing can be utterly misleading. In the marginal constituency I worked in earlier this year, we got the highest Conservative vote in 25 years, and plenty of first time Tory voters. It didn't stop the Labour majority from more than doubling.
    Mmmmmh when I canvassed we used to compare results afterwards, the differences were peculiar. Inexperienced people were (understandably) far less reliable.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    They're waiting to c&p something from twitter
    Nah, you Leavers are like holocaust deniers, whatever we say, you just ignore the facts and evidence.
    Of course that's true, your integrity and brevity are above reproach, and what's more I can't ever remember you predicting an incorrect outcome.

    I hang on your every word.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,872

    Alistair said:

    For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.

    Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
    It's step 1 of my 12 step plan to get polling companies to release paramtizable models with their polls so we can crash test their assumptions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,049
    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    I think the key thing is that the EU holds most of the cards and it's not in their interest to make Brexit look easy or appealing to any others that might consider exiting. I don't condone that approach but it is entirely predictable.

    Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    Mr. Palmer, I agree with you.

    I also think it's odd that Weinstein hasn't been suspended, but sacked. At the moment, these are allegations. That's not the same as conviction. If he's guilty, then by all means punish him, but guilt should be established prior to punishment.

    We cannot, of course, know - but it is possible that the company has greater direct knowledge of his behaviour than do we:
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/9/16447118/confidentiality-agreement-weinstein-sexual-harassment-nda
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 59,914
    edited October 10
    The other pointer to the Tory underperformance was this bit of polling, taken during the final weekend of t he campaign, first from YouGov, just look how Mrs May 'Ratnered' herself and the party.



    Then from Ipsos MORI


  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,872

    Jonathan said:

    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.

    What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
    With Jim Messina offering a bet on YouGov being so wrong.
    And then executed a special reverse ferret after he election.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. B, that is true, but would then raise questions regarding that potential knowledge and their actions recently, and inaction in the past.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,842
    edited October 10

    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?



    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    No, I don’t think you are. And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.

    But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.

    When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.

    There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587



    Mr. Daodao/Mr. Topping, it's an intellectually vacant position to demand an exit bill but refuse to say what it should be.

    It is unfortunate, Mr.D, that any judgment we might make of the intellectual consistency of the EU's negotiating position is of little consequence to the outcome of the negotiation itself.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398

    Mr. Eek, indeed, but the way to establish guilt is through the courts, using facts and evidence. It isn't through allegations alone, as recent events in the UK have once again proved.

    Mr. Daodao/Mr. Topping, it's an intellectually vacant position to demand an exit bill but refuse to say what it should be.

    intellectually vacant it might be (fantastic choice of term given who's in there batting for our side), but again, it's their prerogative to do so. We must, sadly, suck it up.

    No point moaning that they aren't playing fair.
  • Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.

    What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
    With Jim Messina offering a bet on YouGov being so wrong.
    And then executed a special reverse ferret after he election.
    Yeah, his polling was right, he just didn't know it at the time.

    On election night it was a Tory majority of 60 plus Scotland.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    I think the key thing is that the EU holds most of the cards and it's not in their interest to make Brexit look easy or appealing to any others that might consider exiting. I don't condone that approach but it is entirely predictable.

    Strangley, the erstwhile regular Leavers' mantras along the lines of 'they need us more than we need them' and 'the German car industry will make sure we get a trade deal' seem to have dried up on this forum.
    What Brexit has confirmed is how inept the vast majority of politicians are, business people negotiate complex issues with real money everyday, our representatives (and those in the EU) are completely out of their depth. The popular saying is two drunks fighting in a puddle.

    Despite the rows on here the general public is underwhelmed by the whole thing, like everything else it will be sorted in the end, if its not the tories are toast, they have to own this.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,360




    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    No, I don’t think you are. And you make a good point. Sexual abuse involving touching or worse or exposing yourself is the worst. There is a tendency to describe even the most minor incident, however behaviourally inappropriate or wrong, in the most apocalyptic terms which can, as you say, underrate serious cases.

    But an encounter such as this can make a young woman, especially one without power, feel vulnerable. It could so easily turn nasty. It is hard to deal with without potentially ruining your chances of work. And it’s this last which is the nub of it. You don’t interview someone if you’re not fully dressed, especially when you are a man, more physically powerful and more economically powerful and in a sector where the “casting couch” is a reality. You just don’t.

    When I was a young lawyer, I had instances of people (older men) saying or suggesting things which were quite wrong. I was amazed and thought it reflected appallingly on them. But I was lucky in having a father who set an example for me of how men should behave and so gave me a sort of force field around me which protected me. I was always clear that it was they who were in the wrong and that I had no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. So I ignored them (or got my own back in subtle but satisfying ways) and was fortunate to have the support of my pupil master. But as the most junior person on the team, with no sway, needing work, you have to make a fine calculation as to how to respond by making it clear that you’ll bite back without completely screwing over your chances of getting on.

    There are ways of doing so. But young females should not be put in this situation just because men, who do - and should - know better cannot behave in a civilised manner and are indulged (all this bollocks about “ working through their demons” is nonsense) when caught out in shabby behaviour that any decent man would be ashamed of.

    Excellent post.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,398
    edited October 10
    Elliot said:

    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    CD13 said:

    Interesting poker play in the EU negotiations.

    "The ball is in your court," the EU say. So that means we can move things onto to trade talks? No, it means they concede nothing but we have to agree to all their demands.

    That is called taking the piss, and it deserves a brusque response. What would the Europhiles do? Keep conceding in the vain hope of generating good will, and then vote against any deal because it isn't good enough? Not exactly a cunning plan, is it?

    I still can't take Jezza seriously; it reminds me of the Cabbage Path doll craze the kiddies went through a few years ago. It lasted a couple of years and then disappeared without trace.

    I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
    The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
    If they're not willing to explain their concerns behind the British proposal, then it makes it very hard to collaborate to find a deal. Perhaps they don't want one, but let's see. May has extended the olive branch with compromise proposals twice now. Let's see whether they come in at all from their hard-line position.
    Absolutely, I agree with that completely, but they are the opposing side in the negotiations as we have said to them: we want out. I think as several people have noted, @NickPalmer springs to mind yesterday: while they haven't quite already forgotten about us, they aren't holding emergency meetings to guage progress so far.

    They have set out their stall, perhaps cryptically, and it's up to us to respond or do something. We are the ones long theta.

    To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 180

    RoyalBlue said:

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident and very knowledgeable and many were actively campaigning. I assumed that they were the ones with the inside info and that what they were saying was a good guide to what was actually going on.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    This place is interesting in many respects, what amazes me is that with a few measured exceptions the predictions on here are woeful. As I know from personal experience, in order to convince others you will win an election you have to first convince yourself. This site is full of people who have brainwashed themselves into believing their own nonsense and stating opinions as facts.

    It makes for good entertainment but I wouldn't take many on here seriously. The exceptions are those who actively canvas, the results can be brutal but undeniable as opposed to those who form their views from their twitter feeds.
    Canvassing can be utterly misleading. In the marginal constituency I worked in earlier this year, we got the highest Conservative vote in 25 years, and plenty of first time Tory voters. It didn't stop the Labour majority from more than doubling.
    Mmmmmh when I canvassed we used to compare results afterwards, the differences were peculiar. Inexperienced people were (understandably) far less reliable.
    Candidates are often worse (particularly relevant in local elections where they may canvas a significant percentage of a ward). A combination of delusion and voters not wishing to offend can make the results useless. A candidate canvassed his own street. The result indicated he was going to win by a North Korean type percentage. We recanvassed and it showed he wasn't going to and he didn't.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.

    Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    O/T: is it a generational thing that I feel that this story is really exaggerated?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/actor-romola-garai-felt-violated-after-harvey-weinstein-encounter

    She went for an interview with the director, who eccentrically was still in a dressing gown - yes, that's a bit odd. Then she sat on a chair and had a brief discussion about the film. There's no suggestion that he said or did anything unprofessional in the discussion. Now, many years later, she looks back on it as "humiliating", "an abuse of power", and the most problematic thing that has ever happened to her in her career.

    Some of the other allegations about him do sound bad, but this? I really don't want to be a Neanderthal and underrate the feeling of vulnerability that women (or people generally) can have, especially nervous teenage actresses, but I think the tendency to put things like this into the general category of sexual abuse can lead to the most serious cases being underrated.

    But maybe I'm missing the point?

    I'm with you on this particular example, Nick, although as mentioned elsewhere there are apparently much more telling examples.

    It's a good job Romola never had to meet Churchill, who apparently would have meetings while he was in his bath!
    I'm not sure anyone ever alleged Churchill invited anyone to join him in there and soap him up...
  • eekeek Posts: 1,913

    Jonathan said:

    We should remember that the polls called Canterbury, but the hive mind laughed at it.

    What was telling was that the Tory High Command laughed at it.
    which means either they were polling locally incorrectly or making decisions based on bad information and assumptions.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,948
    edited October 10

    Alistair said:

    For me reporting on polls need to report both their unweighted (as well as weighted) headline figure.

    Why? Anyone with the remotest interest in politics and certainly all the parties know to dig down into the details. Pb is littered with posts debating the implication of various subsamples.
    Except you CAN'T dig into as many details as you'd like.

    For instance total number of people phoned in a phone survey is never stuck in to the details.

    The Huffington Post polling team made good sense of the GE numbers, unfortunately they aren't listing the sequence right now as we're a way off the next GE. Some of the overbending of the numbers to the Tories was crazy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,587

    Mr. Topping, it's a self-contradictory nonsense of an approach.

    Take the Irish border. That depends upon the trade agreement (or lack thereof) we have, but the EU insists it'll only discuss the prerequisite for an agreement on the Irish border after the border is settled. It's crazy.

    It does seem so, Mr.D.
    But how does that help us ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,387
    edited October 10
    Nigelb said:

    The last election was the 10th I have been old enough to follow, but despite all previous experience I was still taken in by the polls and was planning a modest punt on a Tory majority of 40. Luckily for my bank balance I was too busy with other things to get around to placing my stake.

    The interesting thing was I dismissed the evidence of my own eyes - the lack of Tory posters where you would expect them, a large well organised group of Labour canvassers operating in a very Tory part of Hastings and the fact that several people I know revealed that they were going to switch to Labour.

    David Herdson's now famous post aside, one of the reasons for believing the polls rather than real life was this forum. The pro-Conservative posters on here all seemed very confident ...

    I'm not sure that's entirely true. The lamentable campaign came in for a deal of criticism from quite a few. There were certainly a large number of loud and confident predictions of victory, but I don't think doubt was ever entirely absent.
    (FWIW, I'd already got a small punt on a hung parliament a few days before David's last minute cry of desperation persuaded me to increase it.)
    That's correct, though I believe some partisans repeatedly asserted that St 'keep me away from the great unwashed' Theresa was running a smart campaign.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 200
    edited October 10
    DavidL said:

    I think the real question for the polling industry is whether they were wrong from the start or whether they were caught out by a late swing as people had increasing reservations about giving May untrammelled power. If it was the former their incompetence seriously distorted our election creating a false narrative that influenced how people voted.

    As Mike points out the local election results indicated that the Tories were in a very strong position and the narrative at that time was all about how unbelievably useless Corbyn was and indeed is. But were the Tories ever 20% ahead? I really doubt it. For the second election in a row significant numbers of people voted on a false premise. It is a concern.

    It's always an interesting debate. Did the polls drive votes or did the voting intentions determine the poll results.

    In 2015 everyone assumed a hung parliament based on all the polls - and voters engineered a majority government

    In 2017 almost every one assumed a Tory landslide based on almost all the polls - so it was 'safe' to throw votes Labour's way to cut their majority a little. Did they want Corbyn or just a slightly less powerful May. Had all the polls predicted a much closer result or a hung parliament would voters have donr a 2015.

    If Cameron's own polling before the EU referendum not shown remain 10 per cent ahead but level or behind would he have done things differently?
This discussion has been closed.