I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...
This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.
Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.
My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.
Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:
So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -
"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "
That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.
In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)
You are the site's leftist Leon.
I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.
I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.
Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.
So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?
So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?
Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.
The qualifying standard (each country is allowed one wild card) for the 100m this year is 10.00s. That’s 5% faster than the women’s world record, one of the dodgiest records in athletics history.
I think it would be marvellous having a large bet at 8/1 that they will get less votes than the 12.9m Jezza got in 2017
FEWER
Nope. The words are not interchangeable in all instances, but here the meaning was perfectly clear and there is a long history of it being used that way as well.
Where meaning is unaffected the idea it should not be done as its 'wrong' is just silly.
The Labour VI in the (non-MRP) YouGovs since the methodology change at the start of the month has been 40%, 41%, 38%, 37% and 36%.
The LD VI in the same series has been 10%, 11%, 15%, 14% and 14%. I will leave it to others more competent than me to agree but that looks like an anti-Tory tactical swing to me.
Or, heaven forfend, an actual swing from Labour to the LDs?
Indeed. The LibDems often increase in polling during an election campaign because they get more attention than usual.
True, though the opposite happened during the 2019 campaign.
Lovely weather here today, at long bloody last. Meant to be 20C but feels warmer.
With all these dire Tory numbers AND the data apparently suggesting they're collapsing harder in previous areas of strength, one begins to wonder what kind of opposition might be left in Parliament. The prospect of a Liberal Democrat shadow cabinet may still not be the most likely outcome, but if we get one it'll be drawn largely from politicians new to Parliament. I mean, I know it doesn't feel like it matters to a great extent of Labour ends up with a majority north of 200, but all the same it'll be quite a thing.
It's all gone very wrong for poor Rishi. SKS seems to be slipping a touch, but he's got a pretty much perfect split amongst the non Labour vote now.
Beautiful, isn't it? He's like the Allied generals who couldn't deal with both the conventional offensive on the Breda-Dyle line up north, and the Ardennes attack, at the same time in 1940.
Finally had a second leaflet, and it's from an independent candidate copying Reform colours.
Unclear for the most part where they fall as most of the issues they raise fit better if they were standing for the town council, but they did mention leaving ECHR and ending immigration too.
The reason why the election is on July 4th is that a lot of people saw the odds on a July election, placed a bet and then encouraged their boss (Rishi) to go early...
"I don’t think Rishi Sunak has the skillset to fight a general election campaign which is impacting my thoughts."
You think?
Sunak........very smart but very dumb at the same time
I'm at the stage where Conservative candidates should all be junked unless they've all been comprehensively reselected, they have excellent careers, they've all been on weeks of training and due diligence has been done on all of them.
The quality. Oh my word.
if you'd like suggestions, I know of a company that can do some unconscious bias training
Thanks for the tip! Maybe you should join me; they say it's great for those who are unaware they need it the most.
Thanks for the trap tip but I have done unconscious bias training. I'm aware of my biases and work on them actively.
Yes, like the assumption that only fruit and vegetables are vegan. I have to work on that one. Recently discovered that soap can be vegan too.
"I don’t think Rishi Sunak has the skillset to fight a general election campaign which is impacting my thoughts."
You think?
Sunak........very smart but very dumb at the same time
I'm at the stage where Conservative candidates should all be junked unless they've all been comprehensively reselected, they have excellent careers, they've all been on weeks of training and due diligence has been done on all of them.
The quality. Oh my word.
if you'd like suggestions, I know of a company that can do some unconscious bias training
Thanks for the tip! Maybe you should join me; they say it's great for those who are unaware they need it the most.
Thanks for the trap tip but I have done unconscious bias training. I'm aware of my biases and work on them actively.
Yes, like the assumption that only fruit and vegetables are vegan. I have to work on that one. Recently discovered that soap can be vegan too.
Do you need to brush your teeth after eating soap?
36% on a low turnout too really is shockingly poor.
Heading for 2 million votes less than they got under Jezza in 2017. I think I predicted 36% in the PB GE 2024 competition.
Am going to be miles out on the Con % though.
Of course Jezza famously won the 2017 election. You seem to be annoyed the Tories are going to be out for a decade.
Also, you supported Johnson, you said you'd like to have him re-elected.
On the former. He didn't win but he denied the Tories a majority and achieved the biggest swing to Lab since WW2.
At one point it looked like SKS might have been on target to take that record at GE2024. Then people saw SKS
On the latter point, and I have already told you this about a dozen times. I have never voted Tory never will and would not have voted for Boris either. I will definitely have said my local area has benefited from Boris levelling up and that Lab are to the right of Boris on quite a few fronts.
Just repeating I supported Boris doesn't make it true unless of course I was comparing him to worse options such as non Lab Labour
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
"I don’t think Rishi Sunak has the skillset to fight a general election campaign which is impacting my thoughts."
You think?
Sunak........very smart but very dumb at the same time
I'm at the stage where Conservative candidates should all be junked unless they've all been comprehensively reselected, they have excellent careers, they've all been on weeks of training and due diligence has been done on all of them.
The quality. Oh my word.
if you'd like suggestions, I know of a company that can do some unconscious bias training
Thanks for the tip! Maybe you should join me; they say it's great for those who are unaware they need it the most.
Thanks for the trap tip but I have done unconscious bias training. I'm aware of my biases and work on them actively.
That’s cute. Let me know when you’ve graduated to conscious competence.
I try not to start topics on this conversation, instead playing defence against anti-trans posters. But seeing this I can only think - this is the world you're asking for. And, of course, it won't just be used for those students known to be trans; any child accused of being trans could easily be put before such a board. But those of us demanding autonomy and dignity for trans people and trans kids are the risk to child wellbeing...
This is indeed appalling. Your solution appears to be to let anyone who wants to compete in women's sports because you posit there is no competitive advantage to biological males, ignoring, evidence to the contrary, sometimes making your own evidence up - your infamous made up assertion regarding women in tennis being a case in point. When people point this out you jam your fingers in your ears and call us "transphobic". Which is not the case. However you are not a good faith participant in this debate.
Please come up with a solution rather than picking fights for the sake of it. How do we make the participation of males in female sport fair? There is a problem here and I don't see any workable solutions from either side.
My solution is what it has always been - more equitable distribution of resources between the currently gender segregated sports, with the aim of making non segregated sports easier. And calling transwomen males is not really a point in favour of you taking this issue in good faith.
Also, more history of previously non segregated sports becoming gender segregated after women start beating men:
So, in 1903, a woman came second in a figure skating competition. And that is proof that women are biologically the same as men? Do you know how silly that sounds? Figure skating is a sport which straddles the line with art. Points are given on artistic merit not speed, height or strength. The fact that you choose that shows how weak that argument is. I read this article when it came out and it lacks a basic understanding of what sport is. What sport do you play out of interest? How could "resources" be better allocated in that sport to avoid sex segregation? The article says -
"Inclusion also chips away at the overarching narrative that women’s and girls’ sports are second tier, and therefore women and girls, as athletes, are inferior to men. "
That's the exact opposite of what would happen. Gender segregation promotes participation and inclusion, ensuring that female athletes have opportunities to excel and be recognized in their sports. No woman has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100m in America despite Title IX in the States devoting millions in resources to the sport. Your solution would kill women's track and field.
In games of pick up basketball, or park football, from Hackney to Honduras there are few "resources" involved and the only fair way to ensure participation for both sexes is to have segregated teams - otherwise women would *generally* not be able to play (men being *on average* 15% taller, stronger and faster)
You are the site's leftist Leon.
I have never claimed that women are biologically the same as men - what I have said is that the differences between them and their ability to perform in sports is more down to resources and societal pressures than it is those biological differences.
I've not played much sport, but the years prior to covid I played co-ed netball with my work colleagues. And, as a 6ft 4 man, I was often outplayed by shorter, older, women. Why? Because netball is considered a women's game, most of the women playing had much better history of playing netball and my physical advantages didn't make up for that fact. It's almost as if the physical advantages of a mediocre man are not actually enough to outdo skill and training and investment in a sport.
Title IX has been bad for women's sport - as this article argues.
So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?
So you think the reason that kick arounds in the park or at lower leagues are sex segregated is because of the overwhelming physical superiority of the average man over the average woman, and not because of, say, the social pressures on women to do things that align with our ideas of femininity and for men to do things that align with our ideas of masculinity? Did people completely miss Bend it Like Beckham?
Yes - I do. I think the reason that all the finalists and semi-finalists (and beyond) in the Men's 100m in the Olympics run a faster time than the winner of the equivalent Women's event is because there are differences between men and women that no amount of sociological sophistry can overcome. Your argument is basically "women must try harder and be given more help" which is beyond insulting to professional women athletes and those that train and back them. They are women who have devoted lives to their discipline and you say, essentially, they have been conditioned by society to do worse. It's beyond insulting.
The qualifying standard (each country is allowed one wild card) for the 100m this year is 10.00s. That’s 5% faster than the women’s world record, one of the dodgiest records in athletics history.
In various strength based sports, such as rowing, there are tables available on the relative performance of men and women.
These are based on many thousands of people around the world, all trying, sometimes to an extreme degree to get better results.
One of my rowing coaches is a lady who is a couple of seconds off the pace to be in the British team. Not through lack of effort or determination - she trains to a degree that is staggering to observe. Her life is built around it.
"I don’t think Rishi Sunak has the skillset to fight a general election campaign which is impacting my thoughts."
You think?
Sunak........very smart but very dumb at the same time
I'm at the stage where Conservative candidates should all be junked unless they've all been comprehensively reselected, they have excellent careers, they've all been on weeks of training and due diligence has been done on all of them.
The quality. Oh my word.
if you'd like suggestions, I know of a company that can do some unconscious bias training
Thanks for the tip! Maybe you should join me; they say it's great for those who are unaware they need it the most.
Thanks for the trap tip but I have done unconscious bias training. I'm aware of my biases and work on them actively.
Yes, like the assumption that only fruit and vegetables are vegan. I have to work on that one. Recently discovered that soap can be vegan too.
Do you need to brush your teeth after eating soap?
36% on a low turnout too really is shockingly poor.
Heading for 2 million votes less than they got under Jezza in 2017. I think I predicted 36% in the PB GE 2024 competition.
Am going to be miles out on the Con % though.
Of course Jezza famously won the 2017 election. You seem to be annoyed the Tories are going to be out for a decade.
Also, you supported Johnson, you said you'd like to have him re-elected.
On the former. He didn't win but he denied the Tories a majority and achieved the biggest swing to Lab since WW2.
At one point it looked like SKS might have been on target to take that record at GE2024. Then people saw SKS
On the latter point, and I have already told you this about a dozen times. I have never voted Tory never will and would not have voted for Boris either. I will definitely have said my local area has benefited from Boris levelling up and that Lab are to the right of Boris on quite a few fronts.
Just repeating I supported Boris doesn't make it true unless of course I was comparing him to worse options such as non Lab Labour
How do you explain the improvement in Starmer's own numbers over the course of the campaign?
The Labour VI in the (non-MRP) YouGovs since the methodology change at the start of the month has been 40%, 41%, 38%, 37% and 36%.
The LD VI in the same series has been 10%, 11%, 15%, 14% and 14%. I will leave it to others more competent than me to agree but that looks like an anti-Tory tactical swing to me.
Or, heaven forfend, an actual swing from Labour to the LDs?
Indeed. The LibDems often increase in polling during an election campaign because they get more attention than usual.
True, though the opposite happened during the 2019 campaign.
They were caught in a classic third Party squeeze then though. That looks unlikely to happen this time around, rather the opposite in fact. They have every reason to hope tactical voting will play very much to their advantage.
If I were a Tory voter now (I’m not) I’d have all I need now to jump ship to Farage. No point holding up the old Tory Party, it ain’t gonna put in a creditable performance now. Reform, as disagreeable as it is, at least stands for something.
If I were a Tory voter now (I’m not) I’d have all I need now to jump ship to Farage. No point holding up the old Tory Party, it ain’t gonna put in a creditable performance now. Reform, as disagreeable as it is, at least stands for something.
My guess is after the election Nigel Farage MP makes a generous and open offer to dissolve Reform UK, a party he owns, and join the Tory party along with his handful of MPs. Hard for the Tories to refuse, I would have thought. Reuniting the right will be an imperative. Say he has 5 MPs and the Tories have 150. He will put himself forward for the leadership of the party, and every Tory MP will find themselves under huge pressure from local Conservative Associations and constituents to make sure his name is in the final two offered to members. If it is, Farage will be Tory leader. If it isn't, he will claim an establishment stitch up and exit the party at a time of his choosing, bringing with him far more MPs than the five he had before. Sound plausible?
I think this is likely - except for the "Tories have 150 seats" part. One of the problems for Farage may be that FPTP actually prevents a Tory/RefUK merger making him LOTO if the LDs do well enough. I don't think he will have the same incentives or ability to force himself on the Tory party if he doesn't also get to be LOTO. He will have much more of an incentive to claim Reform slew the Conservatives In Name Only dragon and that Reform should be the next logical party for the right.
Of course this is an interesting issue. But there are questions which Goodwin, Leon and Farage would have to face from someone as and when a merger is proposed between the Rump Tories and Reform.
A populist party is different in kind from a real one. Real ones, even though everyone makes allowance for lies and distortions, have to have policies and practices in some conformity with the laws of complex reality.
So take four sample questions for Reform which would require actual answers:
Where do you stand in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Give a coherent account of your tax, spending, debt, borrowing and deficit policy in the immediate 10 year term after running it past the IFS
Is Trump a liar, a fraud, a crook and one who sought to subvert an election illegally?
Is there any truth in the QAnon type conspiracy theories?
QAnon?
Someone with an imagination as fertile as Leon has been having great fun behind a keyboard?
OT they are about to run the Gold Cup at Royal Ascot, the race James Joyce wrote a book (Ulysses) about.
Memories of working there back in 2006 and 2007, as technical lead doing the point of sale systems for the caterers after the rebuild.
There’s a photo of me somewhere with a phone earpiece in one ear, a radio earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm - all while wearing a top hat and tails!
Yes, pretty close to the Norstat numbers yesterday - minor changes all within Margin of Error but of course hugely symbolic for Reform to be second - the actual numbers in the sample are 367 for Reform and 358 for the Conservatives.
Settling to Labour at or around 40, Conservatives and Reform just below 20 and LDs just in double figures.
O/T: How does the curtis exit poll deal with postal votes?
"What about postal voting?
People who vote by post are not included in exit polls. This is potentially a source of bias, if the pattern of vote-changing among postal voters differs appreciably from the vote-changing behaviour of those who use a polling station. This does not seem to have been a major problem yet for prediction from exit polls, but if registration to vote by post continues to increase it could become so. For a bit more detail on how postal voting is accounted for, see Sec 2.2 of Curtice and Firth (2008)."
The problem of selecting polling locations for an exit poll in Britain is long standing, but in 2005 a new problem presented a potentially more fundamental challenge. Exit polls can of course only acquire information from those who actually attend a polling station to vote. If a significant proportion do not vote in person but rather vote, say, by post, then it may no longer be the case that those who vote in person are representative of all those who vote at that station."
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
36% on the day will likely mean 20% or so in mid-term, although goodness knows where those votes will go.
I looked at the MRP averages vs the same pollsters normal polls (a sample of 5)
So, here are the national MRP averages and how they compare with the ordinary polls MRP averages: Con 24.4 (+3.0 compared with normal polls) Lab 42.0 (+1.6) LD 11.2 (0) SNP 3.2 (+0.2) Grn 5.6 (-0.6) Ref 12.0 (-2.0) Others Inc PC 1.6 (-2.2)
There's a small discrepancy because Survation quote UK not GB on their normal polls, but even allowing for that it looks like there is about a 4-5% transfer of votes from challenger parties to incumbent parties overall inherent in the MRP process.
I'm with @Mexicanpete and think there's value on a smallish Tory majority. Going to be off the board for the rest of the afternoon as I have a splitting headache after being kicked in the head by a horse earlier.
I'm less convinced than I was. Although the constant Labour landslide narrative could keep the anti -Tory vote split or at home, so there is always an outside chance. The odds are nonetheless spectacular.
What is your current forecast of the result?
Anything from a moderate Labour majority (no landslide) to a small Conservative majority and all points in between. The Conservative majority is less likely than I once thought but don't rule it out.
Tory majority trading at 130 on Betfair. I assume you have put everything on that bet? You can also get 27 on NOM.
Either that or you are just trollcasting. Again.
You asked me for my opinion and I obliged and offered it to you. If you disagree that's entirely up to you. If you don't require my thoughts please don't ask and kindly **** off!
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
36% on the day will likely mean 20% or so in mid-term, although goodness knows where those votes will go.
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
The same shit is coming for Starmer, he's just 2-3 years behind the curve.
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
36% on the day will likely mean 20% or so in mid-term, although goodness knows where those votes will go.
Green
More diffuse I would imagine, though Greens certainly part of it. Might win another council.
36% on a low turnout too really is shockingly poor.
Heading for 2 million votes less than they got under Jezza in 2017. I think I predicted 36% in the PB GE 2024 competition.
Am going to be miles out on the Con % though.
Of course Jezza famously won the 2017 election. You seem to be annoyed the Tories are going to be out for a decade.
Also, you supported Johnson, you said you'd like to have him re-elected.
On the former. He didn't win but he denied the Tories a majority and achieved the biggest swing to Lab since WW2.
At one point it looked like SKS might have been on target to take that record at GE2024. Then people saw SKS
On the latter point, and I have already told you this about a dozen times. I have never voted Tory never will and would not have voted for Boris either. I will definitely have said my local area has benefited from Boris levelling up and that Lab are to the right of Boris on quite a few fronts.
Just repeating I supported Boris doesn't make it true unless of course I was comparing him to worse options such as non Lab Labour
How do you explain the improvement in Starmer's own numbers over the course of the campaign?
Corbynista logic - it means you can ignore inconvenient things like "facts".
How can a team with the talents of England - which are undeniable, give the status of the players - be so utterly mediocre en masse?
GARETH SOUTHGATE LOOKING AT YOU
When Southgate finally retires, having wasted the greatest generation of talent in English soccer history, football writers will still be praising him as a "fundamentally decent guy"
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
The same shit is coming for Starmer, he's just 2-3 years behind the curve.
As well as having the largest gains, given his lack of connection with the elctorate, Starmer could also hold the record for the biggest losses come the next election.
"a pounding of which there is no suitable analogy"
We're beyond Stepmom territory here, we're talking the kind of stuff only Leon could write.
The kind of stuff that Piers Anthony would write, the only man to be commissioned to write a pornographic story for Playboy, and have it rejected for being too gross.
Talking of that esteemed publication, maybe the Tory party is like the protagonist in Chuck Palahniuk's Guts, and Reform is the pool drain...
I read bits of that story once (my brother in law has some of his books). It's not very nice.
I looked at the MRP averages vs the same pollsters normal polls (a sample of 5)
So, here are the national MRP averages and how they compare with the ordinary polls MRP averages: Con 24.4 (+3.0 compared with normal polls) Lab 42.0 (+1.6) LD 11.2 (0) SNP 3.2 (+0.2) Grn 5.6 (-0.6) Ref 12.0 (-2.0) Others Inc PC 1.6 (-2.2)
There's a small discrepancy because Survation quote UK not GB on their normal polls, but even allowing for that it looks like there is about a 4-5% transfer of votes from challenger parties to incumbent parties overall inherent in the MRP process.
How do you get Reform on just 14% with normal polls?
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
Sorry. I like a lot of what you post but this is utter rubbish.
I don't get the press going for the 'flurry of bets' data. Its millions of pounds. Are we seriously to believe the Tories managed to tell hundreds of punters but nobody in the press knew? Surely it was off the back of that press report about the planning meeting for a snap election the week before? Obviously the individuals under investigation are another matter.......
Do we have any polling/focus group data on why people are switching away?
I suspect it isn’t the only reason. Partygate and Pinchergate, and Tractorgate. Then the general fug of dodginess with Mone and Covid contracts. And the ridiculous/disgusting behaviour from Braverman et al
The Trussterfuck has to have been a big part for many though, for sure. It has made a significant negative material impact on the lives of millions.
All of it leads to the Logan Roy diagnosis of ‘You are not serious people’.
Labour are obviously going to win the election and probably with a record landslide but if they do poll in the 30s on election day it probably spells trouble for them in government, especially when you consider SKS has always been a relatively unpopular LOTO and certainly isn't coming to power on a wave of goodwill.
Sorry. I like a lot of what you post but this is utter rubbish.
Do we have any data on how "lumpy" the Reform vote is?
10-20% of the vote could get them anywhere from 0-70 seats depending on this factor.
Be a massive shame if it was all in the red wall/Midlands and Labour massively underachieve
That is an interesting possibility. If Labour get 33-35%, Libdems win a batch of Tory southern seats, Reform win a batch of Redwall seats and a few brexity Labour ones in places like Sunderland, plus SNP do a bit better than expected, you could end up with a hung parliament.
I don't get the press going for the 'flurry of bets' data. Its millions of pounds. Are we seriously to believe the Tories managed to tell hundreds of punters but nobody in the press knew? Surely it was off the back of that press report about the planning meeting for a snap election the week before? Obviously the individuals under investigation are another matter.......
I don't get the press going for the 'flurry of bets' data. Its millions of pounds. Are we seriously to believe the Tories managed to tell hundreds of punters but nobody in the press knew? Surely it was off the back of that press report about the planning meeting for a snap election the week before? Obviously the individuals under investigation are another matter.......
I don't get the press going for the 'flurry of bets' data. Its millions of pounds. Are we seriously to believe the Tories managed to tell hundreds of punters but nobody in the press knew? Surely it was off the back of that press report about the planning meeting for a snap election the week before? Obviously the individuals under investigation are another matter.......
Millions? I thought it was a few k only.
Oooooh I misread the numbers! D'oh
I think your point still stands. Some of the betting was because of rumours we all heard.
Comments
https://bristol.fandom.com/wiki/Fry's_5_Boys_chocolate
The bed will be shat because the latter has split perfectly.
Will Starmer avoid the same fate on the former?
Lab 41%
Con 19%
Ref 18%
https://www.flotrack.org/articles/12557887-qualifying-standards-for-the-olympics-in-paris-2024
Where meaning is unaffected the idea it should not be done as its 'wrong' is just silly.
Joint-lowest % of 2019 Conservatives EVER to say they will vote Conservative again.
Westminster VI, 2019 Conservatives (19-20 June):
Conservative 37% (-1)
Reform 28% (+1)
Labour 20% (+2)
Other 7% (+2)
Don't Know 8% (-3)
Changes +/- 14-17 June
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1803813889240445091
There's just not the enthusiasm for them out there.
With all these dire Tory numbers AND the data apparently suggesting they're collapsing harder in previous areas of strength, one begins to wonder what kind of opposition might be left in Parliament. The prospect of a Liberal Democrat shadow cabinet may still not be the most likely outcome, but if we get one it'll be drawn largely from politicians new to Parliament. I mean, I know it doesn't feel like it matters to a great extent of Labour ends up with a majority north of 200, but all the same it'll be quite a thing.
So there.
Unclear for the most part where they fall as most of the issues they raise fit better if they were standing for the town council, but they did mention leaving ECHR and ending immigration too.
The reason why the election is on July 4th is that a lot of people saw the odds on a July election, placed a bet and then encouraged their boss (Rishi) to go early...
It will be interesting to see if there is any real swing to Labour up there, or if it all happens elsewhere in key marginals.
At one point it looked like SKS might have been on target to take that record at GE2024. Then people saw SKS
On the latter point, and I have already told you this about a dozen times. I have never voted Tory never will and would not have voted for Boris either. I will definitely have said my local area has benefited from Boris levelling up and that Lab are to the right of Boris on quite a few fronts.
Just repeating I supported Boris doesn't make it true unless of course I was comparing him to worse options such as non Lab Labour
And he said it with a straight face!
These are based on many thousands of people around the world, all trying, sometimes to an extreme degree to get better results.
One of my rowing coaches is a lady who is a couple of seconds off the pace to be in the British team. Not through lack of effort or determination - she trains to a degree that is staggering to observe. Her life is built around it.
https://rowinglevel.com/rowing-times/2000m-times
If you select the Conservative tab you can see movement for 2019 conservative voters for each poll. Similarly for the labour tab and the Lib dem tab.
Over the past 14 days the Conservative 2019 voters are
C 49 (+3)
L 8 (-4)
LD 6(+1)
R 32 (-2)
So a slight move back to Conservatives from Labour.
Labour 2019 voters
C 3(+2)
L 70(-9)
LD 11(+6)
R 10(+1)
So a clear shift from Labour to Lib Dems (tactical voting?)
Lib Dem 2019 voters
C 11(+4)
L 23(-5)
LD 56(+1)
R 6(-1)
So a shift to Conservatives and a shift from Labour.
Joint-lowest net approval rating we have EVER recorded for Rishi Sunak as either PM or Chancellor.
Rishi Sunak Approval Rating (19-20 June):
Disapprove: 52% (+1)
Approve: 25% (-2)
Net: -27% (-3)
Changes +/- 14-17 June
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1803816401943060749
Someone with an imagination as fertile as Leon has been having great fun behind a keyboard?
Oh well
But polls polls polls!
I still think we are headed for
Lab: 38
Ref: 22
Tories: 19
Libs: 14
Summat like that. Starmer with a massive majority on a less than amazing vote share, and Reform overtaking Tories. What a mess
There’s a photo of me somewhere with a phone earpiece in one ear, a radio earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm - all while wearing a top hat and tails!
Settling to Labour at or around 40, Conservatives and Reform just below 20 and LDs just in double figures.
People who vote by post are not included in exit polls. This is potentially a source of bias, if the pattern of vote-changing among postal voters differs appreciably from the vote-changing behaviour of those who use a polling station. This does not seem to have been a major problem yet for prediction from exit polls, but if registration to vote by post continues to increase it could become so. For a bit more detail on how postal voting is accounted for, see Sec 2.2 of Curtice and Firth (2008)."
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/statistics/staff/academic-research/firth/exit-poll-explainer/
"2.2. Postal voting
The problem of selecting polling locations for an exit poll in Britain is long standing, but in 2005 a new problem presented a potentially more fundamental challenge. Exit polls can of course only acquire information from those who actually attend a polling station to vote. If a significant proportion do not vote in person but rather vote, say, by post, then it may no longer be the case that those who vote in person are representative of all those who vote at that station."
https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/171/3/509/7085116
Damn shame, as it was hilarious - but an outlier
Lol, footie fans for Keir
"What percentage of the registered vote will the named party receive in the UK as a whole, at the next UK general election?"
So, here are the national MRP averages and how they compare with the ordinary polls
MRP averages:
Con 24.4 (+3.0 compared with normal polls)
Lab 42.0 (+1.6)
LD 11.2 (0)
SNP 3.2 (+0.2)
Grn 5.6 (-0.6)
Ref 12.0 (-2.0)
Others Inc PC 1.6 (-2.2)
There's a small discrepancy because Survation quote UK not GB on their normal polls, but even allowing for that it looks like there is about a 4-5% transfer of votes from challenger parties to incumbent parties overall inherent in the MRP process.
10-20% of the vote could get them anywhere from 0-70 seats depending on this factor.
Yes that is an utterly pointless fact..
Truss to blame if Tories lose election, suggests Gove
Housing Secretary says former PM’s disastrous mini-budget challenged party’s reputation for ‘sound economic management’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/20/michael-gove-says-liz-truss-to-blame-for-election-loss/
Unless that is more people are implicated tomorrow .
GARETH SOUTHGATE LOOKING AT YOU
When Southgate finally retires, having wasted the greatest generation of talent in English soccer history, football writers will still be praising him as a "fundamentally decent guy"
There must be a Labour mole in CCHQ.
Or a God.
Or both.
Obviously the individuals under investigation are another matter.......
The Trussterfuck has to have been a big part for many though, for sure. It has made a significant negative material impact on the lives of millions.
All of it leads to the Logan Roy diagnosis of ‘You are not serious people’.
xx
The utter crassness of Sunak's tweets make no sense otherwise
"Buy British food"
"Let's hear it for good old British bus stops!"
"I like shirts!"
Not only a fundamentally decent man, but he's taken a bunch of average players, and turned them into a piercing and elegant team, full of fight
Tuesday Wednesday Harry Kane