Campaign Against Antisemitism @antisemitism Diane Abbott, who last year claimed that Jewish people cannot suffer “racism” and apparently only suffer prejudice akin to that experienced by those with red hair, is being allowed to run as a @UKLabour candidate.
Ms Abbott, who had minimised antisemitism before, was sent on a course and told to apologise. Her apology included some story about having sent a newspaper the wrong version of a letter, and her apology was reportedly later followed by another instance of antisemitism-denial.
Ms Abbott must face proper consequences for her actions and actually show that she has changed. There is scant evidence of this.
Sir Keir Starmer has transformed the Labour Party from what it once was under the days of Jeremy Corbyn, but the work is not yet complete, and this latest episode will be reminiscent to many of the politically-expedient dithering around the withdrawal of support for the Labour candidate in the Rochdale by-election a few months ago.
Just as what happened in Rochdale was a regressive step, so is this.
Just as the decision to stand by Azhar Ali in Rochdale was reversed, so must this decision be reversed.
The CAA are misreporting what she said and should STFU and stop telling Labour what to do . Abbott is not a racist or anti-Semite. Seriously I’m sick to the back teeth of the CAA and their constant pearl clutching and attempts to put pressure on Labour.
Starmer has made a lot of effort on the anti-Semitism front and really Labour is now constantly walking on egg shells and overly compensating for past issues .
And yet the CAA still never stop moaning . You know my thoughts on Starmer . I’d be much more enthusiastic with Angela in charge . I will vote to get rid of the Tories by voting Lib Dem in Eastbourne.
Just bizarre. After all these years you cant actually bring yourself to vote Labour. You do realise your one vote wont affect anything ?
I would vote Labour but it’s a wasted vote in Eastbourne .
Trump now claiming he's never falsified business records before. Which considering the massive civil suit he lost in NY, which involved the falsification of business records, is odd.
Is his memory going ?
Trump says this could happen to anyone. Sure, because who hasn't slept with a porn star then tried to hush it up so it doesn't damage our chance of getting elected?
The normal process in American politics is to use the proceeds of the drug dealing empire that involved the mayor, DA and the entire police force to pay off the porn star.
Source - lots of bad movies on Netflix.
There was an episode of "Murder She Wrote" back in 1980s about a prosecutor based in New York City, who bore a STRONG resemblance to Rudy Giuliani then- US District Attorney for NY Southern District (NYC).
Who as I recall distinguished himself by trying to derail investigation by "Jessica Tate" (Angela Lansbury), railroad an innocent man AND in the process obtain even MORE publicity for himself which was his Prime Directive.
I’d like to pay tribute to Lloyd Russell-Moyle who has been our MP since 2017 and who I am proud to call my friend. Following his suspension, I was asked by some local members to stand in Brighton Kemptown. They felt that as someone who had previously been selected by members; had been a local Councillor here for five years; had good local name recognition and had halved the Tory majority in 2015, that I was best placed to win the seat. I spoke to Lloyd and put myself forward to be Brighton Kemptown’s candidate with his support. Everything moved very quickly yesterday and I was pleased to be offered an online interview at 2.40pm. It was disappointing afterwards to find out that during my interview, Michael Crick had Tweeted out that Chris Ward would be the successful candidate. I have forwarded the Tweet to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and I trust that there will now be an investigation to ensure the fairness of the process. It’s important to remember that these decisions affect a wider group of people. Had I been selected I would have kept on all of Lloyd’s team who now face losing their jobs and their livelihoods. I’d like to thank all the local members and the local, regional and national trade unions that took the time to have conversations yesterday and who offered me their support.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Amusing (one word for it anyway) how PB's usual shit-stirrers are positively wallowing in their preferred Putinist pig-shit after the Trump guilty-as-sin verdict.
Keep up your bad work on behalf of the destruction of democracy, as it's all your good for.
One of the main tenets of Putinist 'managed democracy' is that undesirable candidates who might stand a chance of winning must be prevented from running. Only controlled opposition is permitted.
The attempts to sideline Trump by non-democratic means are American Putinism.
Campaign Against Antisemitism @antisemitism Diane Abbott, who last year claimed that Jewish people cannot suffer “racism” and apparently only suffer prejudice akin to that experienced by those with red hair, is being allowed to run as a @UKLabour candidate.
Ms Abbott, who had minimised antisemitism before, was sent on a course and told to apologise. Her apology included some story about having sent a newspaper the wrong version of a letter, and her apology was reportedly later followed by another instance of antisemitism-denial.
Ms Abbott must face proper consequences for her actions and actually show that she has changed. There is scant evidence of this.
Sir Keir Starmer has transformed the Labour Party from what it once was under the days of Jeremy Corbyn, but the work is not yet complete, and this latest episode will be reminiscent to many of the politically-expedient dithering around the withdrawal of support for the Labour candidate in the Rochdale by-election a few months ago.
Just as what happened in Rochdale was a regressive step, so is this.
Just as the decision to stand by Azhar Ali in Rochdale was reversed, so must this decision be reversed.
The CAA are misreporting what she said and should STFU and stop telling Labour what to do . Abbott is not a racist or anti-Semite. Seriously I’m sick to the back teeth of the CAA and their constant pearl clutching and attempts to put pressure on Labour.
Starmer has made a lot of effort on the anti-Semitism front and really Labour is now constantly walking on egg shells and overly compensating for past issues .
And yet the CAA still never stop moaning . You know my thoughts on Starmer . I’d be much more enthusiastic with Angela in charge . I will vote to get rid of the Tories by voting Lib Dem in Eastbourne.
Just bizarre. After all these years you cant actually bring yourself to vote Labour. You do realise your one vote wont affect anything ?
I would vote Labour but it’s a wasted vote in Eastbourne .
In a Tory-Lib Dem marginal like Eastbourne, one vote could make all the diference.
And if your overall preferred result is for the Tory Party to lose power, that one vote in that one seat could make all the difference.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Other than that, about accurate.
Just for fun, Baxtered. CON 28.3% (157 seats) LAB 41.5% (413 seats) LDM 12.2% (44 seats) RFM 7.2% (0) GRN (implied) 5.2% (2)
The big three parties within 8, 5 and 2 seats of their 1997 totals. Would be uncanny.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Other than that, about accurate.
Just for fun, Baxtered. CON 28.3% (157 seats) LAB 41.5% (413 seats) LDM 12.2% (44 seats) RFM 7.2% (0) GRN (implied) 5.2% (2)
The big three parties within 8, 5 and 2 seats of their 1997 totals. Would be uncanny.
And if you assume come incumbency and other local factors…. on the nose would be hilarious.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Other than that, about accurate.
Just for fun, Baxtered. CON 28.3% (157 seats) LAB 41.5% (413 seats) LDM 12.2% (44 seats) RFM 7.2% (0) GRN (implied) 5.2% (2)
The big three parties within 8, 5 and 2 seats of their 1997 totals. Would be uncanny.
And if you assume come incumbency and other local factors…. on the nose would be hilarious.
There are nine fewer seats to go round than in 1997, so you'd need an SNP wipeout to get an exact match. I'm sure that it would be a comfort for some Tories if they held more Scottish seats than the SNP.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Other than that, about accurate.
That feels about right to me. And yes the seat projection that has been posted probably about right too. Maybe 10-20 extra to Con.
Not much movement - no evidence yet that the election campaign has impacted the polling average.
C - 22.7%, L - 45.3%, LD - 9.2%, SNP - 2.7%, G - 5.5%, R - 11.8%
I am keeping my weekly average with just YouGov, Deltapoll, We Think, Savanta, Techne and Redfield & Wilton because of their track record of weekly polling. This enables a consistent approach (assuming that these companies do not change their methodology during the election campaign) on a compareable basis.
Other averages with other polling companies are available.
From this weeks thread you have 5 Nowcasters 1squeeze question Pollster and Zero reweighting companies
Hence your Poll includes 5 companies that produce the highest Lab leads and one that is in the middle whilst you include none from the companies with the lowest lead. I cant see why More in Common Polls which have been weekly in recent times are excluded?
Limits the usefulness IMO
Yor lead of 22.6 compares with actual mean of this weeks polls of circa 19.5
I understand your view point. I do not want to change the six polling companies because they are the six which have produced weekly polling for almost 2 years.
I do not include More in Common which have provided weekly polls recently because if I did, I would not be able to compare on a consistent basis with the average now and the average 12 months ago.
The average is not trying to predict anything; all it is is a tracker of six polling companies with their particular in house methodologies. I am not suggesting that those six polling companies are any better than any other polling company.
What it does enable is a consistent approach to try and discover whether there has been movement from week to week in that average. By using an average of polls it should reduce statisical polling errors.
I think that we are likely to have weekly polls from More in Common, Opinium, Survation, BMG and potentially JL Partners as well as my six from now until 4 July. Other calculations of averages are quite feasible and will show different attributes.
Averaging the latest polls from the eleven companies who've polled so far in this campaign, plus Lord Ashcroft, I get:-
Labour 44.5%, Con 24.3%, Reform 11.2%, Lib Dem 9.2%.
LDs 2-3% too low, expense of Labour, and Reform 3-4% too high, to bandit of Con.
Other than that, about accurate.
Just for fun, Baxtered. CON 28.3% (157 seats) LAB 41.5% (413 seats) LDM 12.2% (44 seats) RFM 7.2% (0) GRN (implied) 5.2% (2)
The big three parties within 8, 5 and 2 seats of their 1997 totals. Would be uncanny.
And if you assume come incumbency and other local factors…. on the nose would be hilarious.
Has anyone asked Starmer about PR recently? I bet he’s gone cold on the idea.
Starmer opposes PR and is a supporter of FPP. That’s the the case for much of the PLP. The idea that Labour would remove a system that favours them is for the birds.
Comments
Who as I recall distinguished himself by trying to derail investigation by "Jessica Tate" (Angela Lansbury), railroad an innocent man AND in the process obtain even MORE publicity for himself which was his Prime Directive.
Art imitating life.
Other than that, about accurate.
And if your overall preferred result is for the Tory Party to lose power, that one vote in that one seat could make all the difference.
CON 28.3% (157 seats)
LAB 41.5% (413 seats)
LDM 12.2% (44 seats)
RFM 7.2% (0)
GRN (implied) 5.2% (2)
The big three parties within 8, 5 and 2 seats of their 1997 totals. Would be uncanny.