snap general election?

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what about the ability to forecast the impact of specific events and actions?

for instance forecasting the size of the economy in 5 years time or the oil price has (some would say) too many variables to be valid.

However would you listen if they forecast the impact of a 10% increase in the oil price or reducing immigration to sub-100,000?

I always listen. As I said upthread it is important to know the impact of events such as a parasite on a cash crop, and economists are best placed to estimate this, but where the outcome is essentially chaos (in the mathematical sense), then this should be noted and limit forecasts.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

what about the ability to forecast the impact of specific events and actions?

for instance forecasting the size of the economy in 5 years time or the oil price has (some would say) too many variables to be valid.

However would you listen if they forecast the impact of a 10% increase in the oil price or reducing immigration to sub-100,000?

I always listen. As I said upthread it is important to know the impact of events such as a parasite on a cash crop, and economists are best placed to estimate this, but where the outcome is essentially chaos (in the mathematical sense), then this should be noted and limit forecasts.

I suspect some are chasing headlines and some media are ignoring provisos to get a headline

bendertherobot

Farron, gone. Not surprising, particularly given earlier resignations today.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm less convinced in the ability of economists to forecast the future.

I think it's rather like weather forecasting to an extent: a chaotic system, but within that things you can make reasoned/reasonable predictions about 'direction of travel' (sorry, I hate that cliché). But throw into a chaotic system the largely unpredictable element of human emotion, and it's easy to see why economists can get it so wrong.

And yet, like weather forecasting, that's not a reason not to do it, but rather to refine the models by comparing forecasts with actual data, and trying to work out why and where the models break down. Both types of forecasting do themselves no favours by overplaying the certainty of their forecasts, though it's interesting to note that the 4-day weather forecasts now have the same accuracy as the 24-hour forecasts of 30 years ago. It'll be interesting to see whether economic forecasting can, despite the human element involved in the subject, make similar sorts of improvements with the massive amount of data crunching now possible.

rick_chasey

Well Tim's gone.

Feels he's been hounded out by his faith; says it drew too much attention away from the liberal cause.

FocusZing

bendertherobot wrote:

Farron, gone. Not surprising, particularly given earlier resignations today.

Yes, should have been more than 12 seats considering the divide from left to right this election (no new Labour).

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well Tim's gone.

Feels he's been hounded out by his faith; says it drew too much attention away from the liberal cause.

I read it slightly differently. I think this bit summed it up well.

... I’m a liberal to my finger tips, and that liberalism means that I am passionate about defending the rights and liberties of people who believe different things to me...

A lot of people seem to struggle with the idea of holding a personal belief, but not wanting to impose that on others, and I can imagine he's sick of explaining it for the umpteenth time to some self-righteous journo.

That's not to say I think he was a great leader; just that it's rather sad that something more or less irrelevant to his abilities as a leader is the reason for him going.

kingstongraham

Who would be a possible replacement?

bompington

I nominate Rick

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

I nominate Rick

I sense you're doing a Stevo, only without the delicious backfire.

briantrumpet

bompington wrote:

I nominate Rick

Have you paid your £3?

Or doesn't it work like that with the LibDems?

rick_chasey

I had forgotten Gove's views on the Good Friday agreement.

http://www.irishnews.com/news/northerni ... nd-589123/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22609774

BelgianBeerGeek

briantrumpet wrote:

bompington wrote:

I nominate Rick

Have you paid your £3?

Or doesn't it work like that with the LibDems?

It's not a question of stumping up. You have to Believe in the LibDems.

kingstongraham

I like that the party name sounds like the worst insult a Trump supporting American could think of.

FocusZing

bendertherobot

No deal reached with DUP yet so looks like a Queen's speech without a majority.

rick_chasey

bendertherobot wrote:

No deal reached with DUP yet so looks like a Queen's speech without a majority.

Will be a short one them, to get it through with DUP 'supply'.

bendertherobot

There are quite a few alleged leaks and snide comments on twitter from the DUP who are surprised at No 10's inability to negotiate.

Stevo_666

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

norvernrob

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

I'd think it's more the fact that a lot of today's pensioners are pretty well off, with cushy final salary pensions that they retired on at 60. And they're scared of them foreign terrorists and Corbyn will 'let them all in'.

verylonglegs

Would be interesting to see if the crossover point where the Conservatives get more votes than Labour has moved up in terms of age. Given the supposed Conservative ethos of encouraging people to own their homes and that being more likely later in life as a generation gets stuck renting then I can only see that age point moving higher.

surrey_commuter

verylonglegs wrote:

Would be interesting to see if the crossover point where the Conservatives get more votes than Labour has moved up in terms of age. Given the supposed Conservative ethos of encouraging people to own their homes and that being more likely later in life as a generation gets stuck renting then I can only see that age point moving higher.

stuck renting whilst washing down their avocado on toast with a glass of prosecco whilst booking their next city break on the latest iPhone before driving home in their rented Audi to check that the cleaner has done a good job.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

as people get older, they often become more set in their ways, less able to take on new ideas and of course there is an increase in early onset.... all this explains why the older you get the likely your will vote for chaos lol! or rather you ll vote for a party that says one thing and then adopts Labour's policies !

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-politics

We do become more conservative and more Conservative as we get older.

rjsterry

DUP deal apparently now not certain. Minority government, then? I wonder whether it's the border or austerity that is the sticking point.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-politics

We do become more conservative and more Conservative as we get older and wiser.

FTFY.

Stevo_666

NorvernRob wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

I'd think it's more the fact that a lot of today's pensioners are pretty well off, with cushy final salary pensions that they retired on at 60. And they're scared of them foreign terrorists and Corbyn will 'let them all in'.

Or maybe poeple outside of the younger brackets are less naive, less idealistic and less likely to be swayed by promises of unaffordable give aways?

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

A inverse relationship between life experience and propensity to vote Labour makes sense to me.

Question is how it changed compared to previous elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-politics

We do become more conservative and more Conservative as we get older and grumpier.

FTFY.

Fixed it again.

letap73

Or maybe people outside of the younger brackets are less tolerant, less flexible and more likely to swayed by promises of returning to an idealised 1950s that never existed.

Stevo_666

letap73 wrote:

Or maybe people outside of the younger brackets are less tolerant, less flexible and more likely to swayed by promises of returning to an idealised 1950s that never existed.

Doubt there are enough of them. To remember the 1950s you'd be pretty old by now.