Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different organisations,
each using their own methods is any more valid than seeing which of them
was least wrong last time.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time? Or
just another pollster who didn't realise that people don't really like
answering them at all, or truthfully?

Corbyn has tidied up his act a bit recently, maybe it's not good to
provide such contrast with the shambles his leadership has been overall.
May has started coming over a bit robotic, she would have done well to
have some "don't remind people of Maggie" coaching.

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

Maybe I'll put myself up for the 'You need to get yourselves together
and act like business professionals' party.

"What do we want, a NOTA option, when did we want it, from the
beginning ...!" ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Andy Burns wrote

Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

More that thats one obvious approach given they dont do their own.

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different organisations,
each using their own methods is any more valid than seeing which of them
was least wrong last time.

Even least wrong last time doesnt prove much given that
most of them have changed the way they do thing because
hardly anyone got the last general election even close.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

Or just another pollster who didn't realise that people don't really like
answering them at all, or truthfully?

A much bigger problem is who bothers to actually vote.

Corbyn has tidied up his act a bit recently,

But its far from clear if that matters except with how poorly Labour does.

maybe it's not good to provide such contrast with the shambles his
leadership has been overall.

He doesnt have any real alternative on that.

May has started coming over a bit robotic, she would have done well to
have some "don't remind people of Maggie" coaching.

And its very far from clear how much **** like that matters.

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow" promises
rather too obviously,

The Torys havent.

I think people will ignore the recent noise and drop back to their longer
term instincts,

Bet they dont with Labour particularly.

i.e. before the election was called ...

Yeah, the alleged narrowing the polls are claiming
should mean that only the most terminal ****wits will
decide that a Tory majority is inevitable and that they
are free to vote for anyone else to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of them all.

And presumably some who wouldnt bother to vote
because they decided the result was inevitable will
actually get off their lard arses and bother to vote.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

No-one who matters will see what you have written

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Andy Burns wrote

Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

More that thats one obvious approach given they dont do their own.

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different organisations,
each using their own methods is any more valid than seeing which of them
was least wrong last time.

Even least wrong last time doesnt prove much given that
most of them have changed the way they do thing because
hardly anyone got the last general election even close.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

we'll know tonight

that may be tomorrow for you

tim

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:27:15 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

ATM, no real difference whatsoever.

No-one who matters will see what you have written

True, but if enough people did it ... ?

Why shouldn't I (everyone) have the option to be able to heard, even
if our voice is saying we don't support any party any more than we are
making a mark against one, even if we aren't actually supportive of
that one (tactical voting etc)?

It's like when you are asked to select off a short and brief / fixed
menu when there is nothing on there that you would actually want,
assuming you could actually work out what the options were in the
first place. So, with nothing standing out as attractive / consumable
you have the choice of either silently going without or maybe
requesting they put something else / more / different on ... or
rethinking how they present the existing menu.

Watching and listening the vast majority of opinions offered here and
those you see on the TV or IRL, it looks like the menu is written in a
foreign language, the cooks aren't listening and the suppliers are
unknown / unreliable so there is little chance of getting what you
ordered in any case. ;-(

I request they have a 'Common sense / business group - dictator party'
that just put up the reasons why they want to do what they want to do
(truthfully / honestly) and we all electronically vote yes or no (and
typically we will all vote yes anyway, because we would trust that it
would be good for the vast majority). ;-)


Cheers, T i m

"tim..." wrote in message news



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

No-one who matters will see what you have written

He is just an attention whore. Did all this **** with the referendum. Good
people have died in recent weeks and ****ing ****s like him continue with
their bull****.

On 08/06/2017 14:27, tim... wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

Tactical voting or trying to prevent someone losing their deposit is the
lesser of two evils if you are in a rotten borough where the same party
always wins no matter who they put up for election.

To be fair ultra safe seats usually get very able candidates parachuted
in although their local knowledge is essentially non-existent.

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

It was appropriate to show derision for the clueless political
appointees as police and crime commissioners in a previous election.

A bit like voting for the monkey mascot in Hartlepool for mayor.
(he won and turned out to be rather good at it)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1965569.stm

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:03:56 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 08/06/2017 14:27, tim... wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

Tactical voting or trying to prevent someone losing their deposit is the
lesser of two evils if you are in a rotten borough where the same party
always wins no matter who they put up for election.

I'm not sure the 'goodwill' of trying to save someone (however futile)
losing their deposit is what it is supposed to be all about though is
it?


To be fair ultra safe seats usually get very able candidates parachuted
in although their local knowledge is essentially non-existent.

Understood. I was also wondering if politically motivated individuals
would ever pay money to others to vote a particular way for them? I
mean, if people are happy to vote for what is best for them
personally, rather than the country as a whole, why shouldn't they?

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

It was appropriate to show derision for the clueless political
appointees as police and crime commissioners in a previous election.

Exactly. The 'spoilt papers' are counted and whilst they don't count
for anything, enough of them might (someday) count against something.

A bit like voting for the monkey mascot in Hartlepool for mayor.
(he won and turned out to be rather good at it)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1965569.stm

Hehe.

Maybe it's because I see the whole election voting process to be just
like gambling ... and gambling on what people *promise* they *might*
be able to do, it's all too much of a lottery for me to be convinced
about any of it. And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...

Cheers, T i m

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Andy Burns wrote

Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

More that thats one obvious approach given they dont do their own.

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different organisations,
each using their own methods is any more valid than seeing which of them
was least wrong last time.

Even least wrong last time doesnt prove much given that
most of them have changed the way they do thing because
hardly anyone got the last general election even close.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

we'll know tonight

Unlikely given when they start counting.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:27:15 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

how is spoiling your ballot by writing on it and better than not voting?

ATM, no real difference whatsoever.

No-one who matters will see what you have written

True, but if enough people did it ... ?

There will never be enough that stupid.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 04:45:57 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:
snip

True, but if enough people did it ... ?

There will never be enough that stupid.

So we let them vote instead? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Andy Burns wrote

Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

More that thats one obvious approach given they dont do their own.

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different
organisations, each using their own methods is any more valid than
seeing which of them was least wrong last time.

Even least wrong last time doesnt prove much given that
most of them have changed the way they do thing because
hardly anyone got the last general election even close.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

we'll know tonight

Unlikely given when they start counting.

Survation are so far out of alignment with everybody else, the exit poll
will be a close enough approximation to the final result to tell whether
they are right, or completely ****ed.

(and that WAS the thing under discussion here)

tim

On 08/06/2017 19:05, T i m wrote:

And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...


Voting in this election is not a game of chance. It is guaranteed that
whichever way you vote "THEY" will shaft you in some way in next few years.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/2017 19:05, T i m wrote:

And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...


Voting in this election is not a game of chance. It is guaranteed that
whichever way you vote "THEY" will shaft you in some way in next few
years.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

**** all of the voters ever get shafted.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:12:59 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/06/2017 19:05, T i m wrote:

And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...


Voting in this election is not a game of chance. It is guaranteed that
whichever way you vote "THEY" will shaft you in some way in next few years.

Never a truer word ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:12:59 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/06/2017 19:05, T i m wrote:

And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...


Voting in this election is not a game of chance. It is guaranteed that
whichever way you vote "THEY" will shaft you in some way in next few
years.

Never a truer word ... ;-)

I just have to pack my small pile of money up and move to another country
:-)

I'm told that Thailand is cheap to live in

tim

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

Maybe I'll put myself up for the 'You need to get yourselves together
and act like business professionals' party.

"What do we want, a NOTA option, when did we want it, from the
beginning ...!" ;-)

Cheers, T i m


The only party with a sensible manifesto was UKIP.

You know I ignored them all and went to bed expecting a hung parliament as
usual when the arrogant politicians attempt to tell us what to do like some
old school maaam
and guess what I woke up and we have one. Brings back the faith in old
curmudgeonly behaviour of the UK electorate.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Both the BBC and Britain Elects seem to think that averaging the last 7
polls is the "best" way to boil down the sea of numbers :-

http://britainelects.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

I'm not convinced that averaging out polls from different organisations,
each using their own methods is any more valid than seeing which of them
was least wrong last time.

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time? Or just
another pollster who didn't realise that people don't really like
answering them at all, or truthfully?

Corbyn has tidied up his act a bit recently, maybe it's not good to
provide such contrast with the shambles his leadership has been overall.
May has started coming over a bit robotic, she would have done well to
have some "don't remind people of Maggie" coaching.

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow" promises
rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent noise and drop
back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the election was called
...

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:12:59 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/06/2017 19:05, T i m wrote:

And because I don't gamble or even play games of
chance ...


Voting in this election is not a game of chance. It is guaranteed that
whichever way you vote "THEY" will shaft you in some way in next few
years.

Never a truer word ... ;-)

I just have to pack my small pile of money up and move to another country
:-)

None of them except a few in in the EU are actually
stupid enough to let you lot in anymore.

I'm told that Thailand is cheap to live in

They wont let you lot in anymore.

tim... wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

Survation are so far out of alignment with everybody else, the exit poll
will be a close enough approximation to the final result to tell whether
they are right, or completely ****ed.

Survation final prediction C=41.3% L=40.4
"final" result (with Kensington apparently waiting until the weekend for
another weekend) C=42.4% L=40.0

Exit poll prediction C=314 seats, L=266 seats
"final" result +/-1 somewhere, C=318 seats L=261 seats

So it seems Survation were right to go out on that limb ...

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:59:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

snip

All of the parties have swapped and changed their "jam tomorrow"
promises rather too obviously, I think people will ignore the recent
noise and drop back to their longer term instincts, i.e. before the
election was called ...

I know I will, (a made up) NOTA again for me which in my opinion (and
the only one that counts in this case / process) is better than not
voting, tactical voting, or wasting a vote on a no-hoper party /
candidate.

Maybe I'll put myself up for the 'You need to get yourselves together
and act like business professionals' party.

"What do we want, a NOTA option, when did we want it, from the
beginning ...!" ;-)

The only party with a sensible manifesto was UKIP.

Clearly not even 10% if those who bothered to vote agree with you on that.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

Survation are so far out of alignment with everybody else, the exit poll
will be a close enough approximation to the final result to tell whether
they are right, or completely ****ed.

Survation final prediction C=41.3% L=40.4

But they never predicted a hung parliament.

So they are completely ****ing useless, just like all the rest.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

Survation are so far out of alignment with everybody else, the exit poll
will be a close enough approximation to the final result to tell whether
they are right, or completely ****ed.

Survation final prediction C=41.3% L=40.4

But they never predicted a hung parliament.

ITYF that they did

tim

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Andy Burns wrote

Will Survation turn out to be geniuses who got it right this time?

We'll know tomorrow.

Survation are so far out of alignment with everybody else, the exit
poll
will be a close enough approximation to the final result to tell
whether
they are right, or completely ****ed.

Survation final prediction C=41.3% L=40.4

But they never predicted a hung parliament.

ITYF that they did

Nope.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:22:48 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip


I just have to pack my small pile of money up and move to another country
:-)

I'm told that Thailand is cheap to live in

Ah, if you do go there 1) I think you will have to marry a Tia (plenty
on the catalogues g) to be able to buy property (you could rent I
think) and 2) make sure no one sees your small pile of money (inc your
new wife) as you may be found in a ditch somewhere. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:22:48 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip


I just have to pack my small pile of money up and move to another country
:-)

I'm told that Thailand is cheap to live in

Ah, if you do go there 1) I think you will have to marry a Tia (plenty
on the catalogues g) to be able to buy property (you could rent I
think) and 2) make sure no one sees your small pile of money (inc your
new wife) as you may be found in a ditch somewhere. ;-(

A bit of Googling suggest it's next to impossible for foreigners to buy
property there

that's all I could find



Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:45:33 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:22:48 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

snip


I just have to pack my small pile of money up and move to another country
:-)

I'm told that Thailand is cheap to live in

Ah, if you do go there 1) I think you will have to marry a Tia (plenty
on the catalogues g) to be able to buy property (you could rent I
think) and 2) make sure no one sees your small pile of money (inc your
new wife) as you may be found in a ditch somewhere. ;-(

A bit of Googling suggest it's next to impossible for foreigners to buy
property there

that's all I could find

I think that's about right and all you need to know, depending what
you might have wanted from living out there. ;-)


Cheers, T i m