On LBC, former Theresa May SPAD Tom Swarbrick, is very perplexed by Labour's stance on Diane Abbott. NEC's Mish Ramen calls the entitled white Starmer Labour leadership racist because of the Party's treatment of PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott.
Sixteen unions demand PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott is reinstated.
Could PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott can deliver a Tory victory?
No, but so far at least Keir has fumbled this. Abbott should be free to stand, indeed hasn’t he implied as much?
This is essentially trivia, save what it tells us about Keir’s judgement (so far, not great).
If Starmer lets Mrs Entitled -Bonkers stand, he really does have poor judgement.
It is confected nonsense by the media, but it has definitely derailed Starmer. Good on the BBC, good on Victoria Derbyshire.
It has “derailed” Starmer.
Whatever you say.
FFS, give it a rest. Your desperation is embarrassing.
89% is high but I continue to wonder why we on PB, who fight like cats in a sack about every nuance of possible political outcome, take "the betting markets" as somehow better informed.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
And the trend at the moment is Labour 45% or higher Tories 26% or lower
And the Tory party is at the point that seats start to disintegrate 26% gives the Toris 108 seats, 25% 96, 24% 84, 23% 49..
Wor Lass once spotted Ms Abbott in the cafe at John Lewis in Sloane Square, and went over to say hello to her. The response was anything but warm and friendly.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
And there is, as yet, no trend
Stability is in itself a trend.
Stability is what I expect, the other option is swingback and that didn't occur in 1997 so why would it occur now when the Tories are in a worse state then they were then..
There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.
Wor Lass once spotted Ms Abbott in the cafe at John Lewis in Sloane Square, and went over to say hello to her. The response was anything but warm and friendly.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
And the trend at the moment is Labour 45% or higher Tories 26% or lower
And the Tory party is at the point that seats start to disintegrate 26% gives the Toris 108 seats, 25% 96, 24% 84, 23% 49..
If Ian Dale chooses wisely he could be leader by the end of July
There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.
Agreed… although it could increase the vote for Corbyn in Islington N.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
yep - because the margin of error is 2% so it's perfectly possible the old figure was out by 2% and the new one out 1% in the other direction...
After the fall of communism, a friend of mine discovered he was a minor celebrity in Romania. He'd written a book in French about some New Age nonsense which had sold a handful of copies. But the samizdat publishers had translated it into Romanian, it being easier to translate from other Romance languages. And for some reason it was very popular in Romania so lots of copies were distributed.
He had no idea about this until he got an invitation to visit Romania in 1990.
It's not Moldova, but it's the closest I've got.
Sounds a bit like Sixto Rodriguez, released a couple of albums in Detroit in the early 1970s, wasn't a success and drifted out of the business only to find out in 1997 that he had sold loads in South Africa and was a bona fide star. The documentary "Searching for Sugar Man" about his story is well worth the watch.
Yep, it's an amazing movie.
There's this guy, whose albums didn't sell, and who went back and spent his life working in construction. And then - aged about 60 - he finds himself a star, playing sold out stadium gigs in South Africa.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.
Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
And there is, as yet, no trend
Stability is in itself a trend.
Stability is what I expect, the other option is swingback and that didn't occur in 1997 so why would it occur now when the Tories are in a worse state then they were then..
There was a closing of the gap from low to mid 20s to mid to high teens over the course of the 97 campaign (very broadly speaking) so a limited swingback occured
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Of corse MOE works in both directions. A Lab score of 50% is within MOE in that poll
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
JLP, Opinium and Savanta have all consistently had rather smaller (but still very healthy) Labour leads compared to the others. As yesterdays thread header explained this is due to the way these pollsters deal with "don't knows" compared to the others.
Reminds me quite a lot of 1997 when ICM stood alone as the only pollster with somewhat more modest Labour leads compared to the rest of the pack. In that election ICM was proved correct as Labour *ONLY* won with a 13% lead as opposed to the +20% lead most of the other pollsters were showing at the time.
Of course we won't know until 10pm on 4th July whether JLP, Opinium and Savanta have this right and Labour win with a landslide and the Tories are out of power for a decade or whether YouGov, People Polling, etc are correct and Labour wins with the biggest majority in British history and the Conservative Party is destroyed forever.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
And 44 was lower end recently for YouGov so it's absolutely in line with their long term trend for Lab VI
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Well, treat those two figures as independent samples, and tell me how many standard deviations you think the difference represents.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
JLP, Opinium and Savanta have all consistently had rather smaller (but still very healthy) Labour leads compared to the others. As yesterdays thread header explained this is due to the way these pollsters deal with "don't knows" compared to the others.
Reminds me quite a lot of 1997 when ICM stood alone as the only pollster with somewhat more modest Labour leads compared to the rest of the pack. In that election ICM was proved correct as Labour *ONLY* won with a 13% lead as opposed to the +20% lead most of the other pollsters were showing at the time.
Of course we won't know until 10pm on 4th July whether JLP, Opinium and Savanta have this right and Labour win with a landslide and the Tories are out of power for a decade or whether YouGov, People Polling, etc are correct and Labour wins with the biggest majority in British history and the Conservative Party is destroyed forever.
I looked at the assumptions that JLP made today and I don't think their assumptions stack up.
For instance the idea is that Tory inclined Don't knows will vote yet Labour ones won't which doesn't match the anti-Tory feeling I'm seeing elsewhere - I feel the opposite may well be true, and that is what the nowcast forecasts are all continually saying.
It's early days though - I suspect it won't be until a week after the manifestos appear that we know the real state of play - it wouldn't surprise me to see Labour on 48% with the Tories on 24% though..
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
With statistically lower probability of being the same, though.
The MoE is (I assume) the 95%CI on the estimate based on sample size. You can have statistically different values with overlapping CIs.
Depends on the assumed distribution and a 3pp difference may well not be statistically different, but it's not impossible. Of course, these are rounded % anyway, so we don't know the exact difference in point estimates - could be up to 4pp with the rounding (43.5 plays 47.4999999999...)
ETA: But who cares anyway? The Tories are polling ~20pp behind and the headline is that isn't noticeably shrinking!
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
That also sounds reasonable - one of those situations were the two sides have completely misread each others positions.
In that case, the party's best bet is to roll over - it'll be her last election in any case. But if she is, for example, insisting on being able to support Corbyn, I can see why they're resisting.
On LBC, former Theresa May SPAD Tom Swarbrick, is very perplexed by Labour's stance on Diane Abbott. NEC's Mish Ramen calls the entitled white Starmer Labour leadership racist because of the Party's treatment of PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott.
Sixteen unions demand PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott is reinstated.
Could PB Tory favourite Diane Abbott can deliver a Tory victory?
No, but so far at least Keir has fumbled this. Abbott should be free to stand, indeed hasn’t he implied as much?
This is essentially trivia, save what it tells us about Keir’s judgement (so far, not great).
If Starmer lets Mrs Entitled -Bonkers stand, he really does have poor judgement.
It is confected nonsense by the media, but it has definitely derailed Starmer. Good on the BBC, good on Victoria Derbyshire.
It offends peoples idea of natural justice. Nothing confected about it. On the wider point it doesn't help Labour if their tent is just made up of Srarmer clones.
............but beyond that there's something iconic about the first female black MP and Labour's heritage means a lot to plenty of people.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Well, treat those two figures as independent samples, and tell me how many standard deviations you think the difference represents.
That's not how statistics work.
Treating them as independent samples, they each have a range of results they can be within standard deviation MoE - and those ranges overlap meaning they are within MoE of each other.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.
Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.
Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
Do you think Truss should pal round with a conspiracy theorist who’s also bezzies with Tommy Robinson? Freedom of speech, sure, Truss can go talk to whoever she wants, but equally the Conservative Party could say that they don’t want her as a candidate if she thinks that’s appropriate.
This is suboptimal. Although not sure this isn’t something that couldnt accidentally happen to a Labour candidate but it’s really not the best thing to get yourself pictured with a convicted drug dealer.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Well, treat those two figures as independent samples, and tell me how many standard deviations you think the difference represents.
That's not how statistics work.
Treating them as independent samples, they each have a range of results they can be within standard deviation MoE - and those ranges overlap meaning they are within MoE of each other.
You are incapable of calculating whether the difference between two independent samples is significant, and you are trying to tell me how statistics work?
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.
Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.
Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.
The quote is correct and it’s very explicitly about raping her. It wasn’t a comedy roast. It was in the context of rape threats being made.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
Do you think Truss should pal round with a conspiracy theorist who’s also bezzies with Tommy Robinson? Freedom of speech, sure, Truss can go talk to whoever she wants, but equally the Conservative Party could say that they don’t want her as a candidate if she thinks that’s appropriate.
Yes. I don't see the problem in any of this:
Truss can do what she wants as far as this is concerned - freedom of speech.
Philips can criticise her and call for her to be sacked - freedom of speech
Sunak can sack (remove whip from) Truss if he believes her free speech has brought the party into disrepute etc; the voters in her constituency can sack her too
Starmer can similarly sack Philips and her voters can too
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
bonkers! the SNP successfully amends the motion on Michael Matheson then doesn’t vote for it. what a mess Swinney has made of the straightforward case of a fella caught rinsing his expenses then lying about it.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
That’s debatable. Spot results have their own margin of error, plus or minus, which people forget usually means 95% confidence limits rather than certainty. Changes from one poll to the next also have their 95% confidence limits, and strictly it isn’t as simple as doubling the margin of error. If the spot margin of error is +/- 3%, with 95% confidence, the chance of a 6% movement between one poll and the next, with no change in methodology, is nevertheless less than 5%.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.
Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.
Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
Movement within the MoE is not movement (either way), its noise
However virtually all movement does occur within MoE. Something like 99% of all polls move within MoE, even when changes are happening.
A 10 point swing between the parties can still be within MoE.
Need to look at the trend rather than just individual polls to separate out the noise.
Trump jury is getting their instructions from the judge - on reasonable doubt, no negative inference from defendant not testifying etc - I have to admit this one is not one I had considered, but I suppose everyone does draw inferences so you need to give some guidance.
Merchan just gave jurors the boilerplate instruction — given in many state and federal courts — about their power to draw inferences. The classic example: If you go to bed and the ground outside is dry, and you wake up and the ground outside is wet, you can infer that it rained overnight.
Prosceutors have asked the jury to draw some inferences about Trump's micromanaging nature to conclude that he certainly would have been aware of the specifics of Michael Cohen's efforts to pay off Stormy Daniels.
That great legal tradition of I reckon They could also of course infer that as Cohen is a convicted liar that he cannot be trusted, its double edged
Convicted, of course, of lying on behalf of his boss.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
I don't agree with her, but if someone had made jokes about raping me I wouldn't like them being platformed either.
Even if the quote is both correct and recent (and 2024 Carl is a very different man from 2018 Sargon), then the joke is really not about rape, it’s about her being unattractive to him.
Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.
The quote is correct and it’s very explicitly about raping her. It wasn’t a comedy roast. It was in the context of rape threats being made.
And he’s said worse things since!
He’s a nasty piece of work and I can’t really fathom defending or endorsing him.
89% is high but I continue to wonder why we on PB, who fight like cats in a sack about every nuance of possible political outcome, take "the betting markets" as somehow better informed.
New @Moreincommon_ voting intention, 27-29 May Margin of error changes see Labour's lead at 19 🔵Conservative 26 (-1) 🔴Labour 45 (+1) 🟡Liberal Democrat 9 (-) 🟢Green 5 (-1) 🟣Reform UK 11 (+1) Changes with 22-23 May n = 2008
The JLP poll looks increasingly like an outlier. MiC is the fourth in a row that has edged away from the Tories, whilst JLP has gone the other way.
It’s all just tiny MOE stuff.
Are you saying that the YouGov movement for Labour from 44% to 47%, with a sample size of 2128, is within margin of error?
Of course it is!
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Hard to see how Starmer doesn't win a majority, main question is its size. Even if somehow the Tories prevented Labour winning a majority in England, Labour gains from the SNP in Scotland and the Labour majority in Wales would give Labour most seats UK wide
Even in the unlikely event of the Tories getting most seats (say 300), the other parties would line up to boot Sunak out of Downing Street.
While it now looks unlikely there is tremendous room for a chaotic result - the sort where the Tories have loads but not enough seats (321/322 might be the watershed because of SF) and, of course, no friends to hold their hands, while everyone else doesn't either. Tories 312, all others 337 + Speaker....
Curious thing is that the nowcasters and the forecasters really ought to converge by polling day, but there's not much sign of that happening yet
Forecasters make assumptions to convert a nowcast into their forecast.
What happens if their assumptions are just outright invalid this time round I looked at the JLP assumptions and can give counter arguments for most of them, if that's true for JLP it's equally true for everyone else.
And remember the only difference between the nowcasters and the forecasters is that the nowcasters are expecting the collapse of the tory party, the forecasters are expecting a result that makes the 97 landslide look small.
There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.
Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.
Two points:
They define Fame as “…the % of people who have heard of this topic.” That’s not the same as knowing who she is. Secondly, I think we need to question the respondent base. According to the table 24% know Gloria Del Piero. I’m a politics nerd and I had never heard of her!
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.
Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.
Curious thing is that the nowcasters and the forecasters really ought to converge by polling day, but there's not much sign of that happening yet
Forecasters make assumptions to convert a nowcast into their forecast.
What happens if their assumptions are just outright invalid this time round I looked at the JLP assumptions and can give counter arguments for most of them, if that's true for JLP it's equally true for everyone else.
And remember the only difference between the nowcasters and the forecasters is that the nowcasters are expecting the collapse of the tory party, the forecasters are expecting a result that makes the 97 landslide look small.
Yup. The closer that 'now' and 'election day' get, the less time there is for swingback to swing. Normally that ought to happen. Heck, Major got some swingback. But it isn't, and- like you say- maybe the dynamics of Con/Ref are going to prevent it happening.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
That also sounds reasonable - one of those situations were the two sides have completely misread each others positions.
In that case, the party's best bet is to roll over - it'll be her last election in any case. But if she is, for example, insisting on being able to support Corbyn, I can see why they're resisting.
Where's the dividing line between supporting Corbyn and not supporting Corbyn. I believe the issue of contention was Laura Alvarez and her tweet on Sunday
"Happy birthday to my favourite person and the real leader of the people. Let's celebrate his birthday by getting everyone to #VoteCorbyn Sign up http://Votecorbyn.com I ❤️ Jeremy Corbyn t-shirt."
Abbott is reported to have liked the tweet, was that a like of wishing her close friend and colleague over a number of years a happy birthday or a like of his campaign to win Islington North?
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.
Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.
It will emerge too late for the GE though, then Labour are in an Azhar Ali Rochdale position.
So what if Angela Rayner’s son is a porn star? He makes porn with his wife. Who cares? These curtain-twitchers need to get an effing life.
Was Rayners house ever used for commercial filming purposes? Did she pay business rates? We really could do with spending a few hundred K and taking some senior detectives off the rota for a month to find out.
One interesting slide is a focus on Conservative 2019 female don't knows. Conservative to undecided voters are overwhelmingly female - Whitby Woman. 72 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2019 and now don’t know how they will vote are female. This group skews much older than the rest of the population and are likely to own their home. They are also much more small-c conservative than the rest of the country - coming largely from our Backbone Conservative and Loyal National segments - which supports the idea a large number are in fact disgruntled Conservatives.
Not the usual marginal picture, so may not have much impact?
One thing to note in my 4 beat combo, Angus and the Perthshire Glens is that one week in we have had a large A3 4 page glossy and a personally addressed letter from our local Tory candidate pointing out its him or the SNP. Some serious money is being chucked at this seat which I wouldn't have thought was a top Tory target. Nothing from any other party including the hard up incumbent. Will this make any difference to anyone except the recycling van? Who knows but I thought i would mention it.
There are times when I think we on PB need to get out more. In the real world, most people don't know who Diane Abbott and most of those who do, don't care whether she stands or not. The thought that this is going to change the narrative of the election is simply fantasy.
Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.
Two points:
They define Fame as “…the % of people who have heard of this topic.” That’s not the same as knowing who she is. Secondly, I think we need to question the respondent base. According to the table 24% know Gloria Del Piero. I’m a politics nerd and I had never heard of her!
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I read the quotes but struggled to find a genleman involved?
So what if Angela Rayner’s son is a porn star? He makes porn with his wife. Who cares? These curtain-twitchers need to get an effing life.
Was Rayners house ever used for commercial filming purposes? Did she pay business rates? We really could do with spending a few hundred K and taking some senior detectives off the rota for a month to find out.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.
Letting her stand and then suspending her if she campaigns for Corbyn seems simplest. No challenge there, you can't back someone running against the party.
It will emerge too late for the GE though, then Labour are in an Azhar Ali Rochdale position.
Sure, but they expect to win enough overall that it won't matter, and she'll have burnt her bridges permanently.
One interesting slide is a focus on Conservative 2019 female don't knows. Conservative to undecided voters are overwhelmingly female - Whitby Woman. 72 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2019 and now don’t know how they will vote are female. This group skews much older than the rest of the population and are likely to own their home. They are also much more small-c conservative than the rest of the country - coming largely from our Backbone Conservative and Loyal National segments - which supports the idea a large number are in fact disgruntled Conservatives.
Not the usual marginal picture, so may not have much impact?
Depends what election you are thinking about - if this election is a landslide v scale 9 earthquake, the former tory voters in these seats may be the difference between the Tory party as the mainstream right wing party or the dying umbers of the former mainstream party.
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.
From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
Just caught up with the headlines dominanted by Diane Abbott and for the first time I can say Starmer looked very shifty in his response
It's a tricky position to be in - he's clearly still hoping that a deal can be done, and doesn't want to be the one responsible for it not happening.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up. 2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying. 3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it? 4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
I would take 4) but if Abbott's disciplinary process ended in December then I can't see how it can be true, it would have been sorted out by now. Let me propose 5) Starmer's team has proposed something that they genuinely thought was fair but Abbott genuinely thought was too humiliating to accept. The Frank Hester thing happened and Abbott thought Starmer might soften which would explain the House of Commons exchange after that PMQ session and the whole thing has got messy. Still means that Starmer lied through his teeth last week but at least gives him a goodish motive for doing so.
They can’t keep her out of the party without a legal fight they’ll almost certainly lose, but also don’t want her campaigning for Corbyn the independent. That’s the naked politics, and it’s visible from space, which is why it backfired on Starmer.
The problem is that if the ability to support Corbyn is the actual sticking point, then it devolves to a special case of option 2- that it's Abbott who's acting maliciously.
If she became the PPC and then campaigned for Corbyn, she would automatically be kicked out of the party. So she'd be left standing as an independent, it would be too late to nominate an official Labour candidate.
So if that really is the suspicion, then the party are in the right. They'd win in the constituency no matter which of Abbott, Bramble, or Moema stands. Abbott can only win as Labour, or as an Independent with no Labour opponent.
One interesting slide is a focus on Conservative 2019 female don't knows. Conservative to undecided voters are overwhelmingly female - Whitby Woman. 72 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2019 and now don’t know how they will vote are female. This group skews much older than the rest of the population and are likely to own their home. They are also much more small-c conservative than the rest of the country - coming largely from our Backbone Conservative and Loyal National segments - which supports the idea a large number are in fact disgruntled Conservatives.
Not the usual marginal picture, so may not have much impact?
Anecdote isn't data but my Mum's in one of those highlighted seats and ticks all the boxes apart from being in her 70s, the Labour candidate canvassed her in a previous election and she thought he was a lovely young chap and voted for him.
The 1.pm News was wall to wall Starmer's misstep/duplicity/arrogance over Abbott. Unlikely to move the dial but you'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved.
She seems genuinely bewildered and upset. I don't feel Starmer is a particularly straight dealer.
With Blair in '97 you felt instinctively he'd do the right thing. With Starmer I have no such feeling.
To be honest, that does not say much for your instincts.
I think the Abbott debacle (along with other mis-steps) shows Starmer’s political inexperience.
We’re about to replace one politically inexperienced technocrat with another. Both men are smart, both sincere in wanting to better the country’s lot, via different routes, both have been in front line politics for less than a decade.
That’s why I fear he relies too heavily on SPADs, who are “clever”.
Comments
Whatever you say.
FFS, give it a rest. Your desperation is embarrassing.
Abbott does seem to be being even more of a loose cannon than usual - she's been bashing the leadership on Twitter a couple of times a week, and now we have the rumours about her being barred from standing which she seems to have been at least partly responsible for starting.
There are 4 possibilities that I can think of to explain what's happening:
1) Abbot really is confused or ill, as the anti-Labour media have been hinting at for years. In this case, the party will want to avoid saying so as it'll make them look like shits if they bring it up.
2) She's acting maliciously in order to punish the leadership. If so, the party can't really say that directly, as their opponents would paint it as bullying.
3) It's Starmer's team that are acting maliciously. But in that case why are they being so coy about it?
4) Some junior party official has screwed up and the party's now left trying to fix things somehow whilst Diane is understandably upset.
I reckon 4) is the most probable explanation for what we're seeing, but that's purely a guess. If you take the BJO position and think Starmer is a shit, then I can certainly see how 3) would seem like the more likely option.
Tories 26% or lower
And the Tory party is at the point that seats start to disintegrate 26% gives the Toris 108 seats, 25% 96, 24% 84, 23% 49..
Trend is the thing here...
There's this guy, whose albums didn't sell, and who went back and spent his life working in construction. And then - aged about 60 - he finds himself a star, playing sold out stadium gigs in South Africa.
Worth listening to both his albums.
You do realise that MoE being ± means that double the MoE movement is still within MoE, don't you?
Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.
Most people do know who she is. Youguv have recognition at 76%, but popularity at just 11% and disliked by 49%. It is obviously better for Labour if she does not stand.
Reminds me quite a lot of 1997 when ICM stood alone as the only pollster with somewhat more modest Labour leads compared to the rest of the pack. In that election ICM was proved correct as Labour *ONLY* won with a 13% lead as opposed to the +20% lead most of the other pollsters were showing at the time.
Of course we won't know until 10pm on 4th July whether JLP, Opinium and Savanta have this right and Labour win with a landslide and the Tories are out of power for a decade or whether YouGov, People Polling, etc are correct and Labour wins with the biggest majority in British history and the Conservative Party is destroyed forever.
For instance the idea is that Tory inclined Don't knows will vote yet Labour ones won't which doesn't match the anti-Tory feeling I'm seeing elsewhere - I feel the opposite may well be true, and that is what the nowcast forecasts are all continually saying.
It's early days though - I suspect it won't be until a week after the manifestos appear that we know the real state of play - it wouldn't surprise me to see Labour on 48% with the Tories on 24% though..
The MoE is (I assume) the 95%CI on the estimate based on sample size. You can have statistically different values with overlapping CIs.
Depends on the assumed distribution and a 3pp difference may well not be statistically different, but it's not impossible. Of course, these are rounded % anyway, so we don't know the exact difference in point estimates - could be up to 4pp with the rounding (43.5 plays 47.4999999999...)
ETA: But who cares anyway? The Tories are polling ~20pp behind and the headline is that isn't noticeably shrinking!
In that case, the party's best bet is to roll over - it'll be her last election in any case. But if she is, for example, insisting on being able to support Corbyn, I can see why they're resisting.
............but beyond that there's something iconic about the first female black MP and Labour's heritage means a lot to plenty of people.
Treating them as independent samples, they each have a range of results they can be within standard deviation MoE - and those ranges overlap meaning they are within MoE of each other.
Philips comes across as someone who’d happily shut down Roast Battle night at the Comedy Store.
https://x.com/lbc/status/1795834420680687806?s=46
God save us from opinionated Internet numbskulls!
He's so greasy and low rent
And he’s said worse things since!
“We’ve been in touch”
“What? By telepathy?”
SNP “hold my beer”
bonkers! the SNP successfully amends the motion on Michael Matheson then doesn’t vote for it. what a mess Swinney has made of the straightforward case of a fella caught rinsing his expenses then lying about it.
https://x.com/euanmccolm/status/1795828176205299760
https://www.chronicle.gi/police-investigate-ukip-candidate-jess-phillips-rape-comments/
"She doesn't have people..."
What happens if their assumptions are just outright invalid this time round I looked at the JLP assumptions and can give counter arguments for most of them, if that's true for JLP it's equally true for everyone else.
And remember the only difference between the nowcasters and the forecasters is that the nowcasters are expecting the collapse of the tory party, the forecasters are expecting a result that makes the 97 landslide look small.
They define Fame as “…the % of people who have heard of this topic.” That’s not the same as knowing who she is. Secondly, I think we need to question the respondent base. According to the table 24% know Gloria Del Piero. I’m a politics nerd and I had never heard of her!
"Failed at Burnley, went to Bayern" is not something you expect to see.
The only reason I'd be bothered is if he was making it with children - and even then it would be nothing to do with Angela.
Sign up http://Votecorbyn.com I ❤️ Jeremy Corbyn t-shirt."
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/3rbhqx0m/weekly-webinar-1.pdf
One interesting slide is a focus on Conservative 2019 female don't knows. Conservative to undecided voters are overwhelmingly female - Whitby Woman.
72 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2019 and now don’t know how they will vote are female. This group skews much older than the rest of the population and are likely to own their home. They are also much more small-c conservative than the rest of the country - coming largely from our Backbone Conservative and Loyal National segments - which supports the idea a large number are in fact disgruntled Conservatives.
Not the usual marginal picture, so may not have much impact?
Will this make any difference to anyone except the recycling van? Who knows but I thought i would mention it.
And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.
We would miss you if you went for Tory and Labour respectively and died of alcohol poisoning.
If she became the PPC and then campaigned for Corbyn, she would automatically be kicked out of the party. So she'd be left standing as an independent, it would be too late to nominate an official Labour candidate.
So if that really is the suspicion, then the party are in the right. They'd win in the constituency no matter which of Abbott, Bramble, or Moema stands. Abbott can only win as Labour, or as an Independent with no Labour opponent.
Of being an uppity working class woman who doesn't know her proper place.
We’re about to replace one politically inexperienced technocrat with another. Both men are smart, both sincere in wanting to better the country’s lot, via different routes, both have been in front line politics for less than a decade.
That’s why I fear he relies too heavily on SPADs, who are “clever”.
I suspect we’re in for a bumpy ride.