In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
We shouldn't scrap it - it's too much of a hot potato politically. It attracts outrage. We should find other ways to meet the target than decarbonising energy (at least the current decarbonising strategy) and be prepared to flunk Net Zero if that's what it takes. You should never oppose. You should never have the 'Human Rights Act Repeal Act', you have a new shiny Human Rights Act which does everything you wanted to do.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
The raw figure is a Lab lead much like the other posters. The Lab lead is increasing amongst Women, who make up the majority of DKs.
I cant see bringing BJ back to campaign helps the Blues, the party is already divided enough without him playing to the galleries..
Think of it like a losing gambler making ever bigger and worse bets as their losing streak continues, in order to recoup their losses.
If the base map for Conservative performance is "worse than 1997", then that campaign held together in part. There was sleaze/Hamilton and there was collapse in discipline over the Euro, but the rest of it was pretty coherent. So I'm expecting some bad bets that might come up but will probably make the situation worse. That and Individual MPs freelancing with their own hobbyhorses. Straightforward losers, not value losers.
Arguably, that's how to regard the Conservative announcements so far.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
But can a necessarily subjective forecast of a final outcome, based on polling, ever be an outlier?
I think that, provided their methodology is applied consistently, and not adjusted after looking at the initial results of the sample, then it's fair to consider it in the same way as the other polls.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
The average price per KWH across all wind and solar in the UK is around £193 afaicr. That's an atrocious price, and if we'd done more earlier, we'd have more ludicrously expensive energy and a shitter, less stable grid.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
It's exciting. Cheap, cheerful energy for the developing world will be transformative.
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
I am not forecasting a hung parliament!
At present, I would forecast Lab on 450 +/- 50.
As a LD I would like to see us back as the third party.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Because the capital cost is massive, and interest rates going up has outpaced the price of the technology coming down. It will get there eventually, but hasn’t yet. Energy storage still remains the single biggest issue, we probably need reservoirs at hight that can be filled and emptied.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
The 12 point lead is based on very similar raw findings to other polls. It is a projection based on a poll (and possibly a good projection)
Just in case anyone is wondering, here is JLP's summary of their methodology:
Methodology for Turnout & Imputing Don’t Knows Don’t Knows Don’t knows are imputed “within survey” meaning that each survey has its own bespoke model This allows us to leverage policy based questions within each survey which can be a better indicator and previous vote The basic principle is to build a random forest model which models vote intention for those who have or would not vote. The model takes into account individuals age, gender, qualifications, socio-economic group, tenure well as their responses to survey questions and then model their voting intention. This implicitly assumes that those who say they don’t know can be imputed from their policy stance demographics factors “In survey” methods are used at the moment as we do not have a homogeneous set of policy questions doing a good job as PM) As we move to a set of questions we ask consistently we can build a model which runs over multiple However, we will use a sliding window of data to run such models as it is assumed that “don’t know” time-dependent and we want to capture this as the election progresses. This is something we can track on a weekly basis and show how those who reply “don’t know” are Ultimately, we would hope to have a sliding window of 4 weeks worth of data to build the don’t know Note that the model can amplify panel based effects, e.g. it imputes Yonder as more Labour-y, so using panels would be best in order to mitigate any amplification of biases. Turnout This model does not use policy questions - we need to run the census data through it so we are limited we can control for This model begins by taking self-reported propensity to vote and imposes a hard cut-off at 9 such 9 or 10 are classed as “voters” - 0 representing those scoring 8 or below and 1 for those scoring 9 A random forest classifier is then built using this 0/1 variable as the value we try to predict This model controls for a variety of constituency level effects as well as age, gender, qualifications, group, tenure and previous vote. We do not include vote intention as an indicator as this will introduce increased computational complexity calculations and there is not much evidence that it improves the model. The model returns a predicted class for each person (0 or 1) as well as the probability of being in a turnout figure we use is the probability of the model predicting 1. For example, we may predict a young woman living in London who rents, is in SEG AB and voted Labour previously is 0. But the probability the turnout for this group of people would be estimated at 43%. This model appears to give a reasonable estimate of turnout as a % of the total voting population The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
It's exciting. Cheap, cheerful energy for the developing world will be transformative.
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
For sunnier parts of the world it makes absolute sense. For us it is a useful part of a power portfolio, but for our climate wind and tide too.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
Thought: if he does that, he will literally be talking himself into a jail sentence.
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
To be fair to @Foxy , he did say "in the event". Future events have non-zero probabilities. The Kubler-Ross stuff is largely coming from Conservative supporters.
And it's a fair point to note that the polling is saying something crazy. In the British system, parties don't win elections by over twenty points. Even Maggie in 1983 only won by fifteen.
And yet... The numbers are the numbers, across many polls by multiple companies. And they are backed up by the other data we have. I think it's now OK to say that the act of calling the election hasn't caused a "minds concentrated, this is now for real" bounce for the government.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
Thought: if he does that, he will literally be talking himself into a jail sentence.
I half think he wants that because he wants to be seen as a martyr for his believes…
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
It's exciting. Cheap, cheerful energy for the developing world will be transformative.
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
For sunnier parts of the world it makes absolute sense. For us it is a useful part of a power portfolio, but for our climate wind and tide too.
I wonder what David MacKay (he of 'Sustainable energy without the hot air') would have made of it? I think he modelled putting solar panels on every south-facing roof. Which is certainly the place to start if they're expensive and scarce. But if they're dirt cheap (which they are), there's less reason not to put them everywhere.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Because the capital cost is massive, and interest rates going up has outpaced the price of the technology coming down. It will get there eventually, but hasn’t yet. Energy storage still remains the single biggest issue, we probably need reservoirs at hight that can be filled and emptied.
It's not going to be reservoirs, it's going to be batteries.
Once every home has a battery then we massively improve the energy resiliency of the country, because a storm that knocks out the grid doesn't leave people without power - they can run off their battery until they're reconnected. And 30 million 100kWh batteries is 3TWh of storage - more than 300 Dinorwigs!
We will want to make a lot of batteries. Solar panels and a battery looks like an obvious installation for every house.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
Thought: if he does that, he will literally be talking himself into a jail sentence.
I half think he wants that because he wants to be seen as a martyr for his believes…
If he ends up in jail for more than six months, he's off the campaign. I know the Republicans have lost reason on the subject, but it simply won't be practical for them to pick a convicted felon doing jail time (and probably by then a bankrupt too) as their candidate.
I've been assuming this was unlikely but the way he's behaving I'm wondering what choice the judge will have if there is a guilty verdict - or even if there isn't.*
Ironically, if he were facing imminent trials in Washington, Georgia and Florida that might sway the judge the other way, but his delaying tactics mean there's now a biggish window to lock him up and still face those courts later.
*I also wonder how likely it is he will start mouthing off against the courts while on campaign - I'm assuming contempt laws will still apply even if the gag order doesn't?
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
To be fair to @Foxy , he did say "in the event". Future events have non-zero probabilities. The Kubler-Ross stuff is largely coming from Conservative supporters.
And it's a fair point to note that the polling is saying something crazy. In the British system, parties don't win elections by over twenty points. Even Maggie in 1983 only won by fifteen.
And yet... The numbers are the numbers, across many polls by multiple companies. And they are backed up by the other data we have. I think it's now OK to say that the act of calling the election hasn't caused a "minds concentrated, this is now for real" bounce for the government.
They've got five weeks, and counting.
One of two things is true: 1) The polls are right and we're trending with increasing rapidity towards ELE 2) The entire polling industry faces its own ELE by getting the result this badly wrong.
OK, events dear boy could pull a massive change out of the blue. But the Starmer team is super disciplined, my own LibDem team knows the messages to play and even had some fun with it yesterday. Vs the SNP defending the indefensible and the Tories proposing firing our 18 year olds into the sun.
What do we think about this proposed Post Office takeover?
The board of the company that owns Royal Mail has agreed to a formal takeover offer for the 500-year-old organisation.
Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky has firmed up an offer of £5bn, including assumed debts, for the company which employs more than 150,000 people.
The entrepreneur said he had the "utmost respect" for its history and tradition.
The offer includes commitments to retain the name, brand, UK headquarters and UK tax residency, as well as protections for employee benefits and pensions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn0n93zj4o
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
Thought: if he does that, he will literally be talking himself into a jail sentence.
I half think he wants that because he wants to be seen as a martyr for his believes…
If he ends up in jail for more than six months, he's off the campaign. I know the Republicans have lost reason on the subject, but it simply won't be practical for them to pick a convicted felon doing jail time (and probably by then a bankrupt too) as their candidate.
I've been assuming this was unlikely but the way he's behaving I'm wondering what choice the judge will have.
Ironically, if he were facing imminent trials in Washington, Georgia and Florida that might sway the judge the other way, but his delaying tactics mean there's now a biggish window to lock him up and still face those courts later.
Neither the fraud or the contempt of court would usually warrant anything like a 6 month sentence.
He should be getting a long sentence for the secret documents case, but a biased judge has saved his bacon.
What do we think about this proposed Post Office takeover?
The board of the company that owns Royal Mail has agreed to a formal takeover offer for the 500-year-old organisation.
Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky has firmed up an offer of £5bn, including assumed debts, for the company which employs more than 150,000 people.
The entrepreneur said he had the "utmost respect" for its history and tradition.
The offer includes commitments to retain the name, brand, UK headquarters and UK tax residency, as well as protections for employee benefits and pensions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn0n93zj4o
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
The raw figure is a Lab lead much like the other posters. The Lab lead is increasing amongst Women, who make up the majority of DKs.
I cant see bringing BJ back to campaign helps the Blues, the party is already divided enough without him playing to the galleries..
Look what you might have won - doesn’t really play on either side - those who like Boris will see what is missing those who hate Boris will be reminded how we got to this point
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
I think the very partisan voters mostly got weeded out in jury selection so there won't be any of those unless they got unlucky and hit a Trump cultist who keeps their mouth shut and stays off social media.
The epic Trump rant if he gets convicted will be a sight to behold. Despite what you suggest being very likely true I suspect the Donald will accuse the jurors of all being in the pay of the Biden deep state or some other semi-incoherent nonsense.
Thought: if he does that, he will literally be talking himself into a jail sentence.
I half think he wants that because he wants to be seen as a martyr for his believes…
If he ends up in jail for more than six months, he's off the campaign. I know the Republicans have lost reason on the subject, but it simply won't be practical for them to pick a convicted felon doing jail time (and probably by then a bankrupt too) as their candidate.
I've been assuming this was unlikely but the way he's behaving I'm wondering what choice the judge will have.
Ironically, if he were facing imminent trials in Washington, Georgia and Florida that might sway the judge the other way, but his delaying tactics mean there's now a biggish window to lock him up and still face those courts later.
Neither the fraud or the contempt of court would usually warrant anything like a 6 month sentence.
He should be getting a long sentence for the secret documents case, but a biased judge has saved his bacon.
@christopherhope I am just back from interviewing Rachel Reeves for GB News. It is extraordinary how Labour is so cautious on its plans and the Tories are not. Labour says there will be no increases in income tax, NICs or corporation tax, nor any wealth taxes. Meanwhile Conservatives spray around cash on pensions and national service etc It is like the roles played by the partes in the 2017/2019 campaigns (remember Jeremy Corbyn's 'magic money tree') are reversed. I was struck too by Reeves - standing in front of a podium saying "change" - telling her audience of business leaders today: "Stability is change." #GE2024
I've been making this point for a while. Reeves is exceptionally small "c" conservative and seems to have very little ambition to change anything that Hunt has done, except at the edges with a couple of minor taxes that will probably do more harm than good and raise next to nothing.
Of course, Reeves has the disadvantage of knowing she is going to be Chancellor in July and also knows what a gawd awful mess she is going to inherit whilst the so called government is already indulging in the care free nonsense of opposition. I just fear that she risks over doing it. Things are not right in our tax system, in our spending priorities, in our capital investment, in training and growth plans. I, as a generally disillusioned Conservative, want to see change and some long avoided tough decisions taken.
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
To be fair to @Foxy , he did say "in the event". Future events have non-zero probabilities. The Kubler-Ross stuff is largely coming from Conservative supporters.
And it's a fair point to note that the polling is saying something crazy. In the British system, parties don't win elections by over twenty points. Even Maggie in 1983 only won by fifteen.
And yet... The numbers are the numbers, across many polls by multiple companies. And they are backed up by the other data we have. I think it's now OK to say that the act of calling the election hasn't caused a "minds concentrated, this is now for real" bounce for the government.
They've got five weeks, and counting.
One of two things is true: 1) The polls are right and we're trending with increasing rapidity towards ELE 2) The entire polling industry faces its own ELE by getting the result this badly wrong.
OK, events dear boy could pull a massive change out of the blue. But the Starmer team is super disciplined, my own LibDem team knows the messages to play and even had some fun with it yesterday. Vs the SNP defending the indefensible and the Tories proposing firing our 18 year olds into the sun.
It just isn't possible for ELE to happen.
"We just can't get there!"
"Yes, but what if we could...?"
Nothing is impossible, but we are approaching "it looks like the seafront at Southend, but the sea stays steady as a rock and the buildings keep washing up and down" levels of improbability for a meaningful degree of Conservative recovery.
@christopherhope I am just back from interviewing Rachel Reeves for GB News. It is extraordinary how Labour is so cautious on its plans and the Tories are not. Labour says there will be no increases in income tax, NICs or corporation tax, nor any wealth taxes. Meanwhile Conservatives spray around cash on pensions and national service etc It is like the roles played by the partes in the 2017/2019 campaigns (remember Jeremy Corbyn's 'magic money tree') are reversed. I was struck too by Reeves - standing in front of a podium saying "change" - telling her audience of business leaders today: "Stability is change." #GE2024
I've been making this point for a while. Reeves is exceptionally small "c" conservative and seems to have very little ambition to change anything that Hunt has done, except at the edges with a couple of minor taxes that will probably do more harm than good and raise next to nothing.
Of course, Reeves has the disadvantage of knowing she is going to be Chancellor in July and also knows what a gawd awful mess she is going to inherit whilst the so called government is already indulging in the care free nonsense of opposition. I just fear that she risks over doing it. Things are not right in our tax system, in our spending priorities, in our capital investment, in training and growth plans. I, as a generally disillusioned Conservative, want to see change and some long avoided tough decisions taken.
It may change when the manifestos come out but I think she wants to remove any risk of tax bombshell posters (even though more clueful people know they are going to be unavoidable).
I was happy to see that green book value calculations are going to be redrawn, currently they seem to make investment in `London automatically fine and elsewhere an automatic No.
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I am sorry, but you shouldn't be taking hits off a crack pipe before posting. Look at the polling - the labour lead is widening after the GE was called. The low low quality of the tory campaign, message fragmentation and targeting of very narrow voting segments and the conservative organization in a state of disrepair. The numbers are the numbers (within a 2-3% marging of error) and this is going to be a landslide. Talk of hung parliaments is kubler-Ross grief management. Let me remind you the stages: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance.
To be fair to @Foxy , he did say "in the event". Future events have non-zero probabilities. The Kubler-Ross stuff is largely coming from Conservative supporters.
And it's a fair point to note that the polling is saying something crazy. In the British system, parties don't win elections by over twenty points. Even Maggie in 1983 only won by fifteen.
And yet... The numbers are the numbers, across many polls by multiple companies. And they are backed up by the other data we have. I think it's now OK to say that the act of calling the election hasn't caused a "minds concentrated, this is now for real" bounce for the government.
They've got five weeks, and counting.
It's worth remembering that Theresa May had a 20% lead as late as the ICM with fieldwork on 12-14th May - 25 days before polling day, and 26 days after the election was announced. We still have 36 days to go, and we're only 7 days post election announcement.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
The 12 point lead is based on very similar raw findings to other polls. It is a projection based on a poll (and possibly a good projection)
Just in case anyone is wondering, here is JLP's summary of their methodology:
Methodology for Turnout & Imputing Don’t Knows Don’t Knows Don’t knows are imputed “within survey” meaning that each survey has its own bespoke model This allows us to leverage policy based questions within each survey which can be a better indicator and previous vote The basic principle is to build a random forest model which models vote intention for those who have or would not vote. The model takes into account individuals age, gender, qualifications, socio-economic group, tenure well as their responses to survey questions and then model their voting intention. This implicitly assumes that those who say they don’t know can be imputed from their policy stance demographics factors “In survey” methods are used at the moment as we do not have a homogeneous set of policy questions doing a good job as PM) As we move to a set of questions we ask consistently we can build a model which runs over multiple However, we will use a sliding window of data to run such models as it is assumed that “don’t know” time-dependent and we want to capture this as the election progresses. This is something we can track on a weekly basis and show how those who reply “don’t know” are Ultimately, we would hope to have a sliding window of 4 weeks worth of data to build the don’t know Note that the model can amplify panel based effects, e.g. it imputes Yonder as more Labour-y, so using panels would be best in order to mitigate any amplification of biases. Turnout This model does not use policy questions - we need to run the census data through it so we are limited we can control for This model begins by taking self-reported propensity to vote and imposes a hard cut-off at 9 such 9 or 10 are classed as “voters” - 0 representing those scoring 8 or below and 1 for those scoring 9 A random forest classifier is then built using this 0/1 variable as the value we try to predict This model controls for a variety of constituency level effects as well as age, gender, qualifications, group, tenure and previous vote. We do not include vote intention as an indicator as this will introduce increased computational complexity calculations and there is not much evidence that it improves the model. The model returns a predicted class for each person (0 or 1) as well as the probability of being in a turnout figure we use is the probability of the model predicting 1. For example, we may predict a young woman living in London who rents, is in SEG AB and voted Labour previously is 0. But the probability the turnout for this group of people would be estimated at 43%. This model appears to give a reasonable estimate of turnout as a % of the total voting population The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
Interesting thanks . I think their methodology is flawed however and they seem to be overly complicating matters .
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
Heroic assumptions, no less.
This US company has done just 3 UK so-called polls, the first just a month ago, and unlike established polling companies has had no record of testing any of its polling against the reality of actual election results. Compare and contrast with established companies such as IPSOS, YouGov, Savanta (Com Res), Survation.
Basically they've just decided to take pot luck using a heavily biased model. If it turns out that their evidence-free guesswork is right, they'll claim to be polling geniuses and probably look to make further forays into the UK polling market. If they're wrong, they'll just bugger off back to the States. So its a shot to nothing to them. But it's still just guesswork.
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
On that point, they are saying that the complicated model they have just outlined predicts Labour voters (presumably meaning supporters) are less likely to vote than Conservatives. In other words, their model produces this prediction which is in agreement with data from other sources, so that tends to validate their model. It's not in itself an assumption of their model.
On the first part of their model, about "Don't Knows", from the description I struggle to see where the data for party preference are coming from in the first place, to enable them to train their "random forest" model.
I should say that I tried to copy this text from the spreadsheet, and it looks as though part of it is missing, which doesn't help.
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
Heroic assumptions, no less.
This US company has done just 3 UK so-called polls, the first just a month ago, and unlike established polling companies has had no record of testing any of its polling against the reality of actual election results. Compare and contrast with established companies such as IPSOS, YouGov, Savanta (Com Res), Survation.
Basically they've just decided to take pot luck using a heavily biased model. If it turns out that their evidence-free guesswork is right, they'll claim to be polling geniuses and probably look to make further forays into the UK polling market. If they're wrong, they'll just bugger off back to the States. So its a shot to nothing to them. But it's still just guesswork.
I hadn't realised this is a poll for the Campbell/Stewart podcast, "The Rest is Politics". It will be interesting to hear their comments (if any) on the methodology. Perhaps there are already some comments in the archive on the previous polls.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
It's exciting. Cheap, cheerful energy for the developing world will be transformative.
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
For sunnier parts of the world it makes absolute sense. For us it is a useful part of a power portfolio, but for our climate wind and tide too.
I wonder what David MacKay (he of 'Sustainable energy without the hot air') would have made of it? I think he modelled putting solar panels on every south-facing roof. Which is certainly the place to start if they're expensive and scarce. But if they're dirt cheap (which they are), there's less reason not to put them everywhere.
My church has been discussing some for our hall, and the advice was to get both sides done with smaller area, rather than just the SE facing side, as get a much better spread of electricity through the day.
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
On that point, they are saying that the complicated model they have just outlined predicts Labour voters (presumably meaning supporters) are less likely to vote than Conservatives. In other words, their model produces this prediction which is in agreement with data from other sources, so that tends to validate their model. It's not in itself an assumption of their model.
On the first part of their model, about "Don't Knows", from the description I struggle to see where the data for party preference are coming from in the first place, to enable them to train their "random forest" model.
I should say that I tried to copy this text from the spreadsheet, and it looks as though part of it is missing, which doesn't help.
I think their assumptions are reasonable. Older voters are more likely to turnout, and DK voters to revert to old habits. On the other hand the Tory vote is much more disengaged older Redwall voters than it used to be, and Labour much more ABC, so might no longer be true, particularly in marginals and swing seats.
Worth noting too that JLP gives Labour a solid working majority if not a landslide of historic proportions.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Hayward said based on the locals the real Labour lead is between 7 and 9%. To be honest if the polls reflected that reality it might focus the " get rid of the Tories" minds on getting rid of the Tories.
I can still see Sunak sneaking a win on the back of photo ID putting youngsters without photo ID off and ex-patriot Tory voters shoehorned into marginals.
Rishi's first week has not been the disaster some on here claim. His mad cap policies have taken the electorate's eye off the real picture of a chaotic nation in freefall. The media have also circled the Tory wagons and the focus is on Labour chaos over PB Tory favourite Abbott.
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
On that point, they are saying that the complicated model they have just outlined predicts Labour voters (presumably meaning supporters) are less likely to vote than Conservatives. In other words, their model produces this prediction which is in agreement with data from other sources, so that tends to validate their model. It's not in itself an assumption of their model.
On the first part of their model, about "Don't Knows", from the description I struggle to see where the data for party preference are coming from in the first place, to enable them to train their "random forest" model.
I should say that I tried to copy this text from the spreadsheet, and it looks as though part of it is missing, which doesn't help.
I think their assumptions are reasonable. Older voters are more likely to turnout, and DK voters to revert to old habits. On the other hand the Tory vote is much more disengaged older Redwall voters than it used to be, and Labour much more ABC, so might no longer be true, particularly in marginals and swing seats.
Worth noting too that JLP gives Labour a solid working majority if not a landslide of historic proportions.
I don't think it's very clear what their assumptions are.
For example, they seem to be saying they are projecting the behaviour of don't knows using policy questions rather than previous vote (therefore not assuming they will return to "old habits"). But where the data are coming from to link policy and party preference isn't clear to me.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
reality doesn't care if you see it or not.... that is what makes it reality
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Solar instalation is going gangbusters now in India. In the last quarter new solar as much as 2/3 of the UKs solar. When panels are cheap enough it becomes a no brainer.
It's exciting. Cheap, cheerful energy for the developing world will be transformative.
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
For sunnier parts of the world it makes absolute sense. For us it is a useful part of a power portfolio, but for our climate wind and tide too.
There’s an absolutely massive solar park being built out here in the sandpit, as in can-see-it-from-space massive. They’re aiming for pretty much everything from either solar or nuclear in the next few years. It also helps that peak demand is during the day for air conditioning, so little storage is required.
That mad idea of a British solar farm in Morocco, with a very long cable running to the UK, will end up not being quite as mad as we first thought it would be.
The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
There is the fundamental flaw in the JLP model - it may have been true in previous elections but in this one I’m not so sure..
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
On that point, they are saying that the complicated model they have just outlined predicts Labour voters (presumably meaning supporters) are less likely to vote than Conservatives. In other words, their model produces this prediction which is in agreement with data from other sources, so that tends to validate their model. It's not in itself an assumption of their model.
On the first part of their model, about "Don't Knows", from the description I struggle to see where the data for party preference are coming from in the first place, to enable them to train their "random forest" model.
I should say that I tried to copy this text from the spreadsheet, and it looks as though part of it is missing, which doesn't help.
Looking again, I see that part of the missing text was "previous vote"! So their random forest is based on demographics, previous vote and policy questions. And I think the random forest model is training with the party preferences of all the respondents except the don't knows (including "will not vote") in the same survey.
Comments
If the base map for Conservative performance is "worse than 1997", then that campaign held together in part. There was sleaze/Hamilton and there was collapse in discipline over the Euro, but the rest of it was pretty coherent. So I'm expecting some bad bets that might come up but will probably make the situation worse. That and Individual MPs freelancing with their own hobbyhorses. Straightforward losers, not value losers.
Arguably, that's how to regard the Conservative announcements so far.
https://www.mercomindia.com/india-record-solar-capacity-q1-2024
It's not great that China dominates the market - but it's significantly better than Russia disrupting fossil fuels. Once solar panels are in, they're in!
At present, I would forecast Lab on 450 +/- 50.
As a LD I would like to see us back as the third party.
Methodology for Turnout & Imputing Don’t Knows
Don’t Knows
Don’t knows are imputed “within survey” meaning that each survey has its own bespoke model
This allows us to leverage policy based questions within each survey which can be a better indicator and previous vote
The basic principle is to build a random forest model which models vote intention for those who have or would not vote.
The model takes into account individuals age, gender, qualifications, socio-economic group, tenure well as their responses to survey questions and then model their voting intention.
This implicitly assumes that those who say they don’t know can be imputed from their policy stance demographics factors
“In survey” methods are used at the moment as we do not have a homogeneous set of policy questions doing a good job as PM)
As we move to a set of questions we ask consistently we can build a model which runs over multiple However, we will use a sliding window of data to run such models as it is assumed that “don’t know” time-dependent and we want to capture this as the election progresses.
This is something we can track on a weekly basis and show how those who reply “don’t know” are Ultimately, we would hope to have a sliding window of 4 weeks worth of data to build the don’t know Note that the model can amplify panel based effects, e.g. it imputes Yonder as more Labour-y, so using panels would be best in order to mitigate any amplification of biases.
Turnout
This model does not use policy questions - we need to run the census data through it so we are limited we can control for
This model begins by taking self-reported propensity to vote and imposes a hard cut-off at 9 such 9 or 10 are classed as “voters” - 0 representing those scoring 8 or below and 1 for those scoring 9 A random forest classifier is then built using this 0/1 variable as the value we try to predict
This model controls for a variety of constituency level effects as well as age, gender, qualifications, group, tenure and previous vote.
We do not include vote intention as an indicator as this will introduce increased computational complexity calculations and there is not much evidence that it improves the model.
The model returns a predicted class for each person (0 or 1) as well as the probability of being in a turnout figure we use is the probability of the model predicting 1. For example, we may predict a young woman living in London who rents, is in SEG AB and voted Labour previously is 0. But the probability the turnout for this group of people would be estimated at 43%.
This model appears to give a reasonable estimate of turnout as a % of the total voting population The model also predicts that Labour voters are less likely to vote and Conservatives are more likely to vote.
And it's a fair point to note that the polling is saying something crazy. In the British system, parties don't win elections by over twenty points. Even Maggie in 1983 only won by fifteen.
And yet... The numbers are the numbers, across many polls by multiple companies. And they are backed up by the other data we have. I think it's now OK to say that the act of calling the election hasn't caused a "minds concentrated, this is now for real" bounce for the government.
They've got five weeks, and counting.
Once every home has a battery then we massively improve the energy resiliency of the country, because a storm that knocks out the grid doesn't leave people without power - they can run off their battery until they're reconnected. And 30 million 100kWh batteries is 3TWh of storage - more than 300 Dinorwigs!
We will want to make a lot of batteries. Solar panels and a battery looks like an obvious installation for every house.
Also predict is the wrong word - it should be assumes / based on
I've been assuming this was unlikely but the way he's behaving I'm wondering what choice the judge will have if there is a guilty verdict - or even if there isn't.*
Ironically, if he were facing imminent trials in Washington, Georgia and Florida that might sway the judge the other way, but his delaying tactics mean there's now a biggish window to lock him up and still face those courts later.
*I also wonder how likely it is he will start mouthing off against the courts while on campaign - I'm assuming contempt laws will still apply even if the gag order doesn't?
1) The polls are right and we're trending with increasing rapidity towards ELE
2) The entire polling industry faces its own ELE by getting the result this badly wrong.
OK, events dear boy could pull a massive change out of the blue. But the Starmer team is super disciplined, my own LibDem team knows the messages to play and even had some fun with it yesterday. Vs the SNP defending the indefensible and the Tories proposing firing our 18 year olds into the sun.
It just isn't possible for ELE to happen.
"We just can't get there!"
"Yes, but what if we could...?"
What do we think about this proposed Post Office takeover?
The board of the company that owns Royal Mail has agreed to a formal takeover offer for the 500-year-old organisation.
Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky has firmed up an offer of £5bn, including assumed debts, for the company which employs more than 150,000 people.
The entrepreneur said he had the "utmost respect" for its history and tradition.
The offer includes commitments to retain the name, brand, UK headquarters and UK tax residency, as well as protections for employee benefits and pensions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn0n93zj4o
Property play?
https://news.movehut.co.uk/royal-mail-sitting-on-land-and-property-worth-big-money-17476/
He should be getting a long sentence for the secret documents case, but a biased judge has saved his bacon.
But taken all together...
Of course, Reeves has the disadvantage of knowing she is going to be Chancellor in July and also knows what a gawd awful mess she is going to inherit whilst the so called government is already indulging in the care free nonsense of opposition. I just fear that she risks over doing it. Things are not right in our tax system, in our spending priorities, in our capital investment, in training and growth plans. I, as a generally disillusioned Conservative, want to see change and some long avoided tough decisions taken.
NEW THREAD
I was happy to see that green book value calculations are going to be redrawn, currently they seem to make investment in `London automatically fine and elsewhere an automatic No.
This US company has done just 3 UK so-called polls, the first just a month ago, and unlike established polling companies has had no record of testing any of its polling against the reality of actual election results. Compare and contrast with established companies such as IPSOS, YouGov, Savanta (Com Res), Survation.
Basically they've just decided to take pot luck using a heavily biased model. If it turns out that their evidence-free guesswork is right, they'll claim to be polling geniuses and probably look to make further forays into the UK polling market. If they're wrong, they'll just bugger off back to the States. So its a shot to nothing to them. But it's still just guesswork.
On the first part of their model, about "Don't Knows", from the description I struggle to see where the data for party preference are coming from in the first place, to enable them to train their "random forest" model.
I should say that I tried to copy this text from the spreadsheet, and it looks as though part of it is missing, which doesn't help.
Worth noting too that JLP gives Labour a solid working majority if not a landslide of historic proportions.
I can still see Sunak sneaking a win on the back of photo ID putting youngsters without photo ID off and ex-patriot Tory voters shoehorned into marginals.
Rishi's first week has not been the disaster some on here claim. His mad cap policies have taken the electorate's eye off the real picture of a chaotic nation in freefall. The media have also circled the Tory wagons and the focus is on Labour chaos over PB Tory favourite Abbott.
For example, they seem to be saying they are projecting the behaviour of don't knows using policy questions rather than previous vote (therefore not assuming they will return to "old habits"). But where the data are coming from to link policy and party preference isn't clear to me.
That mad idea of a British solar farm in Morocco, with a very long cable running to the UK, will end up not being quite as mad as we first thought it would be.