The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
The problem for the Tories in towns in Essex and Kent though is also that voters are moving out of Labour London to them
Susan Hall gets 32.6% of the vote on current votes in. So that beats the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 on first preferences and the 29% he got in 2004. So she avoids the worst performance by a Conservative candidate in a London Mayoral election albeit still a clear Khan win
There's very little justice in politics. I know from people who worked with him that Steve Norris was a pleasant chap and very capable politician. Yet he was beaten in the mayoral race by an evil hard-Left anti-Semite and didn't do as well as a raving swivel-eyed Trumpian.
Former Epping Forest MP before Dame Eleanor of course and Transport Minister and lover of ladies
Ah yes, the infamous "shagger" IIRC. Different times.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
There was one poll with Khan 10% ahead, (Savanta?).
So presumably, Sunak will be spinning the line: "They said we would lose 500 councillors but we totally out-flanked them and only lost 468. Onwards to victory!"
At any rate his Telegraph article is looking ill-judged:
Rishi Sunak has said the Conservatives have “everything to fight for” as key mayoral contests offered the party a glimmer of hope.
Writing for The Telegraph, the Prime Minister issued a rallying cry after Labour and Tory sources said Conservative Andy Street would win in the West Midlands and predicted that Sadiq Khan’s race to be re-elected in London would be closer than expected.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Hang on, weren’t the 20% leads a wee while back? The 10% latest one just showed it narrowed, no?
The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
I think it's more young professionals have moved to Labour.
There's a bit more to this here: Labour used to be strongly for WWC voters, and class-focussed, whereas now they are for public sector workers, private renters, identity based views and more "internationalist" vibes.
That's slap-bang where so many of them are. Labour would have to start directly hitting their financial interests for them to move back Tory, I think.
To fund the increase in public spending its union paymasters and public sector core vote want though, Labour will likely have to raise taxes on the middle classes in due course if they win
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Not quite, using the polls conducted in the last month
YouGov = Khan lead 22% then 19%
Savanta = Khan lead of 13% and then 10%
Redfield & Wilton = Khan lead of 13%
So it is a failure for YouGov but a big well done to Savanta and Redfield & WIlton.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Not quite, using the polls conducted in the last month
YouGov = Khan lead 22% then 19%
Savanta = Khan lead of 13% and then 10%
Redfield & Wilton = Khan lead of 13%
So it is a failure for YouGov but a big well done to Savanta and Redfield & WIlton.
I replied to your post yesterday pubman, calling it. For me these results don’t change the wider election decision at all. There’s no time left to replace Sunak, but what does waiting just 12 weeks more to call the election give the Tories? More boats in channel, a covid report. Energy prices and food prices going upwards again.
You said “Yes looks like Q4 now. I think the chance of a June/Q3 election has gone now.”
I replied
“ I think you should stick to June, and I 4th July. Nothing has changed.
There’s still this window in the next two months, where the economic and fiscal position will look on the up. Where the Rwanda Scheme still holds hope, before July’s armada of crossings makes it look hopeless.
After summer recess, Covid Report, followed by rising energy costs, rising food prices and inflation in time for an Autumn election. What are we seeing in waiting those extra 12 weeks, that makes polling better, and not actually worse?
I’m sure they plan to avoid another fiscal event. For one thing promises to Posties and Blood victims will have to be delivered, as well as the Defence Funding promise put through an OBR and fully funded. Borrowing is already eating into headroom for rabbits from the hat.
By not putting these things through last budget, I think they have decided to exploit this coming window, where things appear on the up. July 4th election, called 13th of May becuase Parliament already shuts the following week.
Susan Hall gets 32.6% of the vote on current votes in. So that beats the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 on first preferences and the 29% he got in 2004. So she avoids the worst performance by a Conservative candidate in a London Mayoral election albeit still a clear Khan win
There's very little justice in politics. I know from people who worked with him that Steve Norris was a pleasant chap and very capable politician. Yet he was beaten in the mayoral race by an evil hard-Left anti-Semite and didn't do as well as a raving swivel-eyed Trumpian.
Former Epping Forest MP before Dame Eleanor of course and Transport Minister and lover of ladies
Ah yes, the infamous "shagger" IIRC. Different times.
He fell out with the blue rinse brigade who ran the local Conservative Association at the time over his love life, his then wife was a regular at Ladies' Tory lunches and so didn't stand again in 1997
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
My contention was Hall might do 4% better and Khan 4% worse for the "close" result. So, she'd be on 36.7% and Khan on 39.8%.
There's a world where that could have happened and been in line with the rumours, as well as making me a lot more money.
Bundle check in WM confirmed, requested by the Tories. That does suggest a Labour lead of a few thousand - there would be a recount of every vote if it was closer.
Reform probably have done well enough to win a London List seat (they seem to be winning about 7% at constituency level). That would be their sole win.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Hang on, weren’t the 20% leads a wee while back? The 10% latest one just showed it narrowed, no?
Yes the polls were about right. They usually are. That's why if the US is still looking close by end of the summer I will commence the shitting of bricks.
Man, that Soros is a busy guy, is there anything he doesn't fund?
Wait.
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Just as a lot of trendy causes attempt to link up to attempt some kind of universal 'good' side - even if there's not really any reason, say, socialism and trans rights and pro-palestininism necessarily need to go together - so too do all conspiracy theories merge all opponents together, so any woke progressive group must be in league with Hamas but also funded by shady jewish money and the communist fascists (or the fascist communists) or whatever.
Bundle check in WM confirmed, requested by the Tories. That does suggest a Labour lead of a few thousand - there would be a recount of every vote if it was closer.
It'll be interesting to see how many votes Reform UK polled as compared to the Tory deficit.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Bundle check in WM confirmed, requested by the Tories. That does suggest a Labour lead of a few thousand - there would be a recount of every vote if it was closer.
It'll be interesting to see how many votes Reform UK polled as compared to the Tory deficit.
You'd need to counter that with the Galloway backed Indy and Labour
"The dream that darkened Why South Africans are fed up after 30 years of democracy After a bright start the ANC has proved incapable of governing for the whole country"
Everything points to an utterly horrific wipeout for the conservatives, worse than anything they’ve previously experienced.
And the longer he waits, the worse it gets.
Disagree with the first paragraph. At the moment it points to a defeat and a working majority for Labour, possibly very comfortable. Their vote has held up just about enough to suggest it won’t be an existential-level wipeout far worse than 1997. Not that they can draw much comfort from these results, but there are some crumbs here and there.
Your second paragraph - yes, I’d agree. He should really have gone in Spring 2023, truth be told.
"Moreover, although most people expect a clear Blair victory, there is little evidence of positive enthusiasm for Labour, or of high expectations of what the party would do in office."
I feel stupid for being gaslighted by rumours about it being close. It just goes to show that you have to trust the data: the numbers are actually the numbers..... and they were this time too.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
Really interesting voting split in Wiltshire for the PCC, albeit not massively surprising - as you'd expect the Labour candidate got many more votes in Swindon than the rest of Wiltshire, and the Conservative many more in Wiltshire than Swindon, in each case roughly doubling their vote in their stronger area (bit less for the Tories).
But the LD candidate basically was non-existent in Swindon, hence what looks a terrible result.
Stanka Adamcova, Labour and Co-operative Party: 36,345 (12,115 in Wiltshire and 24,230 in Swindon)
Alan Hagger, Liberal Democrats: 20,485 (16,720 in Wiltshire and 3,765 in Swindon)
Mike Rees, Independent: 29,035 (19,754 in Wiltshire and 9,281 in Swindon)
Philip Wilkinson, Conservative and Unionist Party: 38,578 (24,503 in Wiltshire and 14,075 in Swindon)
Almost certainly another position saved by the switch to FPTP though.
I feel stupid for being gaslighted by rumours about it being close. It just goes to show that you have to trust the data: the numbers are actually the numbers..... and they were this time too.
Indeed.
The national opinion polling isn’t wrong as a test of current opinion
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
And decent numbers of Brexit crusties dying off each month, too.
I feel stupid for being gaslighted by rumours about it being close. It just goes to show that you have to trust the data: the numbers are actually the numbers..... and they were this time too.
All the more reason to count the votes immediately next time.
The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
I think it's more young professionals have moved to Labour.
There's a bit more to this here: Labour used to be strongly for WWC voters, and class-focussed, whereas now they are for public sector workers, private renters, identity based views and more "internationalist" vibes.
That's slap-bang where so many of them are. Labour would have to start directly hitting their financial interests for them to move back Tory, I think.
Just to add to this: if the zeitgeist shifts away from identity based views (possible), home ownership goes up and the public sector becomes an unsustainable size, shifting jobs into the private sector, then I'd expect the politics of that group to shift too.
Man, that Soros is a busy guy, is there anything he doesn't fund?
Wait.
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I think it would be fairly easy to check whether they are funded by George Soros - it would be a matter of public record, so speculating whether it's likely or unlikely seems unnecessary. The refutation in the interview doesn't seem terribly unequivocal either.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
And decent numbers of Brexit crusties dying off each month, too.
Brexit is becoming normalised, though.
Even on here it's nothing like as heated as it used to be.
Bundle check in WM confirmed, requested by the Tories. That does suggest a Labour lead of a few thousand - there would be a recount of every vote if it was closer.
On the other hand, the West Midlands Mayoralty region is made up of many constituencies - at least 20 surely! The margin rumoured is 2-3,000 which would work out at 100 - 150 votes per parliamentary constituency. At a GE such a margin would be small enough to justify a full recount in a constituency.
Really interesting voting split in Wiltshire for the PCC, albeit not massively surprising - as you'd expect the Labour candidate got many more votes in Swindon than the rest of Wiltshire, and the Conservative many more in Wiltshire than Swindon, in each case roughly doubling their vote in their stronger area (bit less for the Tories).
But the LD candidate basically was non-existent in Swindon, hence what looks a terrible result.
Stanka Adamcova, Labour and Co-operative Party: 36,345 (12,115 in Wiltshire and 24,230 in Swindon)
Alan Hagger, Liberal Democrats: 20,485 (16,720 in Wiltshire and 3,765 in Swindon)
Mike Rees, Independent: 29,035 (19,754 in Wiltshire and 9,281 in Swindon)
Philip Wilkinson, Conservative and Unionist Party: 38,578 (24,503 in Wiltshire and 14,075 in Swindon)
Almost certainly another position saved by the switch to FPTP though.
Really interesting voting split in Wiltshire for the PCC, albeit not massively surprising - as you'd expect the Labour candidate got many more votes in Swindon than the rest of Wiltshire, and the Conservative many more in Wiltshire than Swindon, in each case roughly doubling their vote in their stronger area (bit less for the Tories).
But the LD candidate basically was non-existent in Swindon, hence what looks a terrible result.
Stanka Adamcova, Labour and Co-operative Party: 36,345 (12,115 in Wiltshire and 24,230 in Swindon)
Alan Hagger, Liberal Democrats: 20,485 (16,720 in Wiltshire and 3,765 in Swindon)
Mike Rees, Independent: 29,035 (19,754 in Wiltshire and 9,281 in Swindon)
Philip Wilkinson, Conservative and Unionist Party: 38,578 (24,503 in Wiltshire and 14,075
in Swindon)
The PCC results were a small consolation for the Conservative
Almost certainly another position saved by the switch to FPTP though.
Everything points to an utterly horrific wipeout for the conservatives, worse than anything they’ve previously experienced.
And the longer he waits, the worse it gets.
Disagree with the first paragraph. At the moment it points to a defeat and a working majority for Labour, possibly very comfortable. Their vote has held up just about enough to suggest it won’t be an existential-level wipeout far worse than 1997. Not that they can draw much comfort from these results, but there are some crumbs here and there.
Your second paragraph - yes, I’d agree. He should really have gone in Spring 2023, truth be told.
Labour’s NEV was 21% in 2009, but they avoided a wipe out.
The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
I think it's more young professionals have moved to Labour.
There's a bit more to this here: Labour used to be strongly for WWC voters, and class-focussed, whereas now they are for public sector workers, private renters, identity based views and more "internationalist" vibes.
That's slap-bang where so many of them are. Labour would have to start directly hitting their financial interests for them to move back Tory, I think.
Just to add to this: if the zeitgeist shifts away from identity based views (possible), home ownership goes up and the public sector becomes an unsustainable size, shifting jobs into the private sector, then I'd expect the politics of that group to shift too.
Next few years will be interesting.
As one of the voters to which you refer (having voted Tory in the past, I am sure you won't believe me but I have), the Tories would need to stop with the culture war nonsense and get back to centrist, open-looking politics. And build some houses.
But I fear based on analysis here, they hold me and others in contempt. We're all communists or something. Snowflakes.
Man, that Soros is a busy guy, is there anything he doesn't fund?
Wait.
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I think it would be fairly easy to check whether they are funded by George Soros - it would be a matter of public record, so speculating whether it's likely or unlikely seems unnecessary. The refutation in the interview doesn't seem terribly unequivocal either.
A person making a claim has the burden of proving their claim I would say. Are others supposed to be able to instantly definitively refute every claim made by a guest? If I go on somewhere and claim Boris or Keir are funding a organisation which goes around stealing toys from orphans, is it on the interviewer to prove me wrong?
Here's something to cheer you up. I'm currently in the San Francisco Bay area and it's raining and colder than London. You're welcome.
San Francisco often has pretty awful weather.
You need to be in LA, where the sun is always shining.
You don't even need to go to LA. The Bay Area has massively different weather depending on where you are and the climate in San Jose is nothing like San Francisco.
'Will Khan’s third win mark the beginning of a new dawn for London? Call Steerpike a cynic, but the city’s rather long list of problems seems to have only grown longer under the Labour mayor’s tenure.'
Bloody hell, did the Tories really come third in the South West constituency despite having held it before? An absolute shocker of a result for them, unless the twitter post I just saw contained a typo.
Man, that Soros is a busy guy, is there anything he doesn't fund?
Wait.
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I think it would be fairly easy to check whether they are funded by George Soros - it would be a matter of public record, so speculating whether it's likely or unlikely seems unnecessary. The refutation in the interview doesn't seem terribly unequivocal either.
A person making a claim has the burden of proving their claim I would say. Are others supposed to be able to instantly definitively refute every claim made by a guest? If I go on somewhere and claim Boris or Keir are funding a organisation which goes around stealing toys from orphans, is it on the interviewer to prove me wrong?
The interviewee knew enough to know that the assertion was not supported by irrefutable evidence - that suggests that they had researched it. But they didn't know enough to offer a firm rebuttal.
Bundle check in WM confirmed, requested by the Tories. That does suggest a Labour lead of a few thousand - there would be a recount of every vote if it was closer.
It'll be interesting to see how many votes Reform UK polled as compared to the Tory deficit.
You'd need to counter that with the Galloway backed Indy and Labour
Galloway is a hard right reactionary imo. I'd vote Tory before him.
Here's something to cheer you up. I'm currently in the San Francisco Bay area and it's raining and colder than London. You're welcome.
San Francisco often has pretty awful weather.
You need to be in LA, where the sun is always shining.
You don't even need to go to LA. The Bay Area has massively different weather depending on where you are and the climate in San Jose is nothing like San Francisco.
The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
I think it's more young professionals have moved to Labour.
There's a bit more to this here: Labour used to be strongly for WWC voters, and class-focussed, whereas now they are for public sector workers, private renters, identity based views and more "internationalist" vibes.
That's slap-bang where so many of them are. Labour would have to start directly hitting their financial interests for them to move back Tory, I think.
Just to add to this: if the zeitgeist shifts away from identity based views (possible), home ownership goes up and the public sector becomes an unsustainable size, shifting jobs into the private sector, then I'd expect the politics of that group to shift too.
Next few years will be interesting.
As one of the voters to which you refer (having voted Tory in the past, I am sure you won't believe me but I have), the Tories would need to stop with the culture war nonsense and get back to centrist, open-looking politics. And build some houses.
But I fear based on analysis here, they hold me and others in contempt. We're all communists or something. Snowflakes.
That’s absolutely spot on. The contempt shown for people like you and I is one of the reasons why I suspect the Conservatives will be out of power for a very long time.
They just don’t get it. They’re not even listening, let alone preparing to change in the correct direction.
To be fair to the much maligned Laura K, as well as the respected John Curtice, they did say on Friday morning that they were astonished at how many Conservatives were basically sticking their fingers in their ears and telling voters they are wrong.
I feel stupid for being gaslighted by rumours about it being close. It just goes to show that you have to trust the data: the numbers are actually the numbers..... and they were this time too.
Well, on the one hand, several people will have made a few quid trading the rumour.
As to its substance, perhaps the key observation was (or should have been) that one or even two days before the count, neither campaign would know anything.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
And decent numbers of Brexit crusties dying off each month, too.
Brexit is becoming normalised, though.
Even on here it's nothing like as heated as it used to be.
That’s because it’s pretty much universally understood as a dismal failure.
In any case, the wider point is that each month the demographics get worse for the Tories.
The problem for the Tories in London is that their voters are constantly moving out of the capital to places like Essex and Kent. The process has been going on for decades.
I think it's more young professionals have moved to Labour.
There's a bit more to this here: Labour used to be strongly for WWC voters, and class-focussed, whereas now they are for public sector workers, private renters, identity based views and more "internationalist" vibes.
That's slap-bang where so many of them are. Labour would have to start directly hitting their financial interests for them to move back Tory, I think.
Just to add to this: if the zeitgeist shifts away from identity based views (possible), home ownership goes up and the public sector becomes an unsustainable size, shifting jobs into the private sector, then I'd expect the politics of that group to shift too.
Next few years will be interesting.
As one of the voters to which you refer (having voted Tory in the past, I am sure you won't believe me but I have), the Tories would need to stop with the culture war nonsense and get back to centrist, open-looking politics. And build some houses.
But I fear based on analysis here, they hold me and others in contempt. We're all communists or something. Snowflakes.
Culture wars are the future of politics, whether we like it or not.
Man, that Soros is a busy guy, is there anything he doesn't fund?
Wait.
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I think it would be fairly easy to check whether they are funded by George Soros - it would be a matter of public record, so speculating whether it's likely or unlikely seems unnecessary. The refutation in the interview doesn't seem terribly unequivocal either.
A person making a claim has the burden of proving their claim I would say. Are others supposed to be able to instantly definitively refute every claim made by a guest? If I go on somewhere and claim Boris or Keir are funding a organisation which goes around stealing toys from orphans, is it on the interviewer to prove me wrong?
The interviewee knew enough to know that the assertion was not supported by irrefutable evidence - that suggests that they had researched it. But they didn't know enough to offer a firm rebuttal.
I think you are overthinking it. She made a claim supported by nothing, and even though she was on a very friendly network the interviewer felt it needed pushing back on. That doesn't suggest they researched it, it suggests 'Soros funded' is an incredibly common slur thrown about in american politics and they know that.
Your standard here would be that any claim made cannot be pushed back on unless there is direct contradictory evidence to hand. How often is that going to be the case, when interviewees may make any number of claims at any time? It's a preposterous standard, and I cannot see that it would ever be applied outside of a rigorous and lengthy one on one.
It's like when people complain about civil trial outcomes not proving things beyond a reasonable doubt, when they are not supposed to. You're basically trying to suggest the claim may be true without directly saying it may be true, because the interviewer did not stop what they were doing and immediately have access to material to exculpiate Soros.
The more outrageous the claim, the more it needs to be justified. Fact checkers are not omniscient or instant, and cannot be expected to be. That doesn't mean people cannot express skepticism and must treat it as true otherwise.
'Will Khan’s third win mark the beginning of a new dawn for London? Call Steerpike a cynic, but the city’s rather long list of problems seems to have only grown longer under the Labour mayor’s tenure.'
I don’t think Khan has been a good mayor, by and large, and I think he should probably have restricted himself to two terms. But he was up against Susan Hall who would have been far worse, so there’s that.
'Will Khan’s third win mark the beginning of a new dawn for London? Call Steerpike a cynic, but the city’s rather long list of problems seems to have only grown longer under the Labour mayor’s tenure.'
I don’t think Khan has been a good mayor, by and large, and I think he should probably have restricted himself to two terms. But he was up against Susan Hall who would have been far worse, so there’s that.
It's like the man putting on running shoes when he and his friend are being chased by a bear.
It won't help him outrun the bear, but if it helps him outrun his friend...
I recall attending a meeting at which former Labour - later SDP - MP Bob Mitchell referred to a recount he had experienced at the 1964 GE. At that election he was Labour candidate for Southampton Test - a seat which the Tories had won by circa 7,000 in 1959. The party was not particularly expecting to win in 1964 there, but Mitchell said that he felt the general conduct of the count to be rather sloppy and not well organised.The final tallies revealed that he had manage to reduce the Tory majority to circa 1600. He demanded a recount and resisted attempts from the Returning Officer and others to talk him out of it. Reluctantly he was granted a Bundle Recount which then went ahead. Some way into the process one of the counters suddenly shouted 'Stop!'. In the Tory pile he had come across hundreds of Labour votes which had been misallocated. After correction the Tory majority well to just 300 and a Full Recount was then ordered. The Tory eventually won by circa 350 - though Mitchell returned to win the seat in 1966. He lost Test again in 1970 but a year later was elected for the Itchen seat at the by election caused by the retirement of the Speaker Dr Horace King.
It was Andy Street’s team that requested the recount in Coventry.
Seems bad for them then. And I’m not really sure a call for recount if the result is c. 3000 votes is a particularly good look. In % terms that’s close but in raw terms or whether there have been mistakes, it isn’t.
Comments
But the big news is Count Binface almost exactly matching his vote from last time - 24260 to 24775, 1.0% again.
At any rate his Telegraph article is looking ill-judged:
Rishi Sunak has said the Conservatives have “everything to fight for” as key mayoral contests offered the party a glimmer of hope.
Writing for The Telegraph, the Prime Minister issued a rallying cry after Labour and Tory sources said Conservative Andy Street would win in the West Midlands and predicted that Sadiq Khan’s race to be re-elected in London would be closer than expected.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/03/rishi-sunak-tories-have-everything-to-fight-for/
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_England#London
YouGov = Khan lead 22% then 19%
Savanta = Khan lead of 13% and then 10%
Redfield & Wilton = Khan lead of 13%
So it is a failure for YouGov but a big well done to Savanta and Redfield & WIlton.
You said
“Yes looks like Q4 now. I think the chance of a June/Q3 election has gone now.”
I replied
“ I think you should stick to June, and I 4th July. Nothing has changed.
There’s still this window in the next two months, where the economic and fiscal position will look on the up. Where the Rwanda Scheme still holds hope, before July’s armada of crossings makes it look hopeless.
After summer recess, Covid Report, followed by rising energy costs, rising food prices and inflation in time for an Autumn election. What are we seeing in waiting those extra 12 weeks, that makes polling better, and not actually worse?
I’m sure they plan to avoid another fiscal event. For one thing promises to Posties and Blood victims will have to be delivered, as well as the Defence Funding promise put through an OBR and fully funded. Borrowing is already eating into headroom for rabbits from the hat.
By not putting these things through last budget, I think they have decided to exploit this coming window, where things appear on the up. July 4th election, called 13th of May becuase Parliament already shuts the following week.
Tits out for Whitsun.”
So the scheming Jewish financier is funding Palestinian groups?
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
There's a world where that could have happened and been in line with the rumours, as well as making me a lot more money.
I really wanted Street back, notwithstanding my betting positions. Grr.
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1786781075273871797
Worst take of the day goes to
Very pleased Sadiq Khan has won.
Literally never heard of Coppard until the last 24 hours and I make it my business to keep up with metro mayor type stuff.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
She’s utterly useless, does nothing but repeat Tory talking points.
You need to be in LA, where the sun is always shining.
Why South Africans are fed up after 30 years of democracy
After a bright start the ANC has proved incapable of governing for the whole country"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/02/why-south-africans-are-fed-up-after-30-years-of-democracy
Your second paragraph - yes, I’d agree. He should really have gone in Spring 2023, truth be told.
"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco" - mark twain and possibly spurious. But it's pretty grim climate wise.
But the LD candidate basically was non-existent in Swindon, hence what looks a terrible result.
Stanka Adamcova, Labour and Co-operative Party: 36,345 (12,115 in Wiltshire and 24,230 in Swindon)
Alan Hagger, Liberal Democrats: 20,485 (16,720 in Wiltshire and 3,765 in Swindon)
Mike Rees, Independent: 29,035 (19,754 in Wiltshire and 9,281 in Swindon)
Philip Wilkinson, Conservative and Unionist Party: 38,578 (24,503 in Wiltshire and 14,075 in Swindon)
Almost certainly another position saved by the switch to FPTP though.
The national opinion polling isn’t wrong as a test of current opinion
Next few years will be interesting.
Even on here it's nothing like as heated as it used to be.
But I fear based on analysis here, they hold me and others in contempt. We're all communists or something. Snowflakes.
Guess I was one of the 24,260!
Sadiq Khan's five worst moments as London mayor 👇
Sean and co are taking it well as you'd expect https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1786786945625977184
If Street loses, he’s free to stand for Westminster and leader after the election.
They just don’t get it. They’re not even listening, let alone preparing to change in the correct direction.
To be fair to the much maligned Laura K, as well as the respected John Curtice, they did say on Friday morning that they were astonished at how many Conservatives were basically sticking their fingers in their ears and telling voters they are wrong.
As to its substance, perhaps the key observation was (or should have been) that one or even two days before the count, neither campaign would know anything.
Andy Street made some poor decisions for JLP, including his vanity project store in Birmingham.
And now he’s (probably) a loser.
Sure you want him as leader?
In any case, the wider point is that each month the demographics get worse for the Tories.
Just imagining explaining that he's shagging Fabricant would surely be enough to put people off.
Your standard here would be that any claim made cannot be pushed back on unless there is direct contradictory evidence to hand. How often is that going to be the case, when interviewees may make any number of claims at any time? It's a preposterous standard, and I cannot see that it would ever be applied outside of a rigorous and lengthy one on one.
It's like when people complain about civil trial outcomes not proving things beyond a reasonable doubt, when they are not supposed to. You're basically trying to suggest the claim may be true without directly saying it may be true, because the interviewer did not stop what they were doing and immediately have access to material to exculpiate Soros.
The more outrageous the claim, the more it needs to be justified. Fact checkers are not omniscient or instant, and cannot be expected to be. That doesn't mean people cannot express skepticism and must treat it as true otherwise.
It won't help him outrun the bear, but if it helps him outrun his friend...
Hall rampers, and those who thought she was ever a value bet, you were wrong.
… (checks Wikipedia)
Oh.
Seems bad for them then. And I’m not really sure a call for recount if the result is c. 3000 votes is a particularly good look. In % terms that’s close but in raw terms or whether there have been mistakes, it isn’t.
Sort-of Trumpish somehow.