Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Scottish Independence Referendum becomes a clash of pol

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited July 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Scottish Independence Referendum becomes a clash of polling methodologies

There was a time when you asked YouGov’s Peter Kellner why his figures were very different from other firms he would respond by saying that he never commented about how other firms operated. No more.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    First!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    First!

    Is that First with YouGov or First with Survation...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    In fairness to Kellner - unlike his Nat critics he makes clear:

    Let me be clear what I am NOT saying. I do not accuse Survation, or any other company, of any intention to bend the truth. On the contrary, I am certain that they try their hardest to publish data that is as accurate as possible. They – and we – know that any systematic bias is likely to result in the embarrassment of inaccurate final polls, published during the week of the referendum.

    The comments after the blog post, as ever, say more about the poster than the article itself......you can feel one former member of this parish' self importance radiating from the page.....
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited July 2014

    In fairness to Kellner - unlike his Nat critics he makes clear:

    Let me be clear what I am NOT saying. I do not accuse Survation, or any other company, of any intention to bend the truth. On the contrary, I am certain that they try their hardest to publish data that is as accurate as possible. They – and we – know that any systematic bias is likely to result in the embarrassment of inaccurate final polls, published during the week of the referendum.

    The comments after the blog post, as ever, say more about the poster than the article itself......you can feel one former member of this parish' self importance radiating from the page.....



    Is that self imporkance?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Headache for Miliband as Unite union urges him to get off fence and back EU referendum http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a765dbce-0139-11e4-9750-00144feab7de.html "electoral millstone" not to
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    And in other news a Scottish Labour candidate (who I think is female but also appears to have a moustache, probably in fulfilment of some quota or other) has quit after misbehaving.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-candidate-resigns-over-hitler-youth-tweet-1-3462378

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Seems a strange thing for Kellner to do. Why bother? We'll find out soon enough who's been calling it right. We've not had a referendum like this one before, so someone dissing a competitor's methodology before the outcome is known is, in my opinion, acting pretty unprofessionally. And the assumption that most Labour voters are No supporters is just that - an assumption.

    His final paragraph is a total cop out: Scotland will vote decisively to stay in the UK, unless it doesn't.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Note - Initially I published an earlier version of this.

    The proper full post is now up
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited July 2014

    And in other news a Scottish Labour candidate (who I think is female but also appears to have a moustache, probably in fulfilment of some quota or other) has quit after misbehaving.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-candidate-resigns-over-hitler-youth-tweet-1-3462378

    In the comments below that piece someone quotes from a recent George Galloway speech, it merits repeating here;

    "I have been divorced more than once. Trust me it is never ever amicable, whatever anybody tells you. But you can make a deal. You can give the partner who is walking out on you all the CDs the DVDs, the dog, the car – you can give them everything, but the one thing you will never ever give them is the right to continue to use the joint credit card.

    And that is what their plan A – and they have no plan B – amounts to.

    They want to use a currency issued by the Bank of England – the clue being in the name; they want to continue to use it and they imagine that the people that issue it will allow them to do so; to use the joint credit card, even though and as they are walking out the door.

    So this is the first time ever that people in a small country, where everyone speaks the same language, are being asked to break up and break up on the basis that they don't have a currency to use.
    There will be no pound. Trust me on that. I came yesterday from Parliament (where) the leaders of the mainstream parties have not changed their minds. An independent Scotland will not have the pound. "

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    The central thrust of Kellner's critique is that by weighting by the 2011 triumph for the SNP you distort and exaggerate SNP (and hence Yes) support. There is a logic to that position.

    In 2011 SLAB were led by a sub Miliband character called Gray who was spectacularly unimpressive. Salmond, in contrast, had led a minority administration with considerable skill, not rocking the boat unduly, working for consensus in the Parliament and generally, along with his Ministerial team coming over as competent. Given a choice of Salmond or Gray many Scots who would not normally vote SNP went Salmond. One of the reasons they would not normally vote SNP is that they did not support independence.

    OTOH I think it is equally clear that to seek to weight results based on 2010 is to make the same mistake in reverse. The question SLAB put to the Scottish people in 2010 was do you want a Tory government in Westminster and Scotland gave its usual resounding answer to that. Many SNP inclined supporters will no doubt have lent their votes to the cause. So weighting on 2010 is, in my view, equally suspect.

    Doing anything useful with the Euro results is practically impossible given the level of turnout.

    For me, this shows the difficulty in applying party support weighting to a one off question like Independence. People vote for a whole range of reasons at each election. As I have said on here before the Independence campaign is much bigger and broader than Salmond. There is, I think, a strong strand in this campaign of putting it to the English and a determination not to be bullied. There is also the anti tory strand so carefully developed by SLAB over a generation.

    These movements make for strange bedfellows. In my limited canvassing for Better Together I came across a surprising number of 2011 SNP voters who were voting no, supporting Kellner's premise. But there is support across the parties for Independence, particularly amongst the have nots and the hard done bys who might be thought to be traditional Labour supporters.

    In short whilst I understand Kellner's argument I think traditional weighting is even more problematic for this question than he is acknowledging. It frankly worries me that ICM are in the closer result camp. They are the Gold Standard and I would love to read their response.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    On the previous post re Lord Ashcroft polling specifically re Norwich South,I have a sense of incredulity with the sitting MP,a L/D,polled at 8%.Has there ever been such a low poll rating for a sitting MP?
    If the L/Ds don't realise they are going down,down,down-to quote Status Quo-they should now.The only arrow left in their bow is to sack the manager and try for a new start.
    Punting-wise,I am happy with 6/4 over 250 L/D lost deposits.
    Bermondsey will be tough for Labour.Hughes has shown himself to stand up to criminality in his constituency,including threats and intimidation towards him.He is a man of some courage.
    Nevertheless,Labour seem to be doing especially well in London.If the local focus is on the brand rather than the individual people will vote for the party more than the man.Politics is very cruel as Peter Tatchell discovered.Hughes may still suffer in return.
    As a result of all this,Bermondsey is a Lab gain at 2-1 with Ladbrokes.My first constituency bet to small stakes to go with the Popcorn and Kebabs on election night.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    And in other news a Scottish Labour candidate (who I think is female but also appears to have a moustache, probably in fulfilment of some quota or other) has quit after misbehaving.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-candidate-resigns-over-hitler-youth-tweet-1-3462378

    In the comments below that piece someone quotes from a recent George Galloway speech, it merits repeating here;

    "I have been divorced more than once. Trust me it is never ever amicable, whatever anybody tells you. But you can make a deal. You can give the partner who is walking out on you all the CDs the DVDs, the dog, the car – you can give them everything, but the one thing you will never ever give them is the right to continue to use the joint credit card.

    And that is what their plan A – and they have no plan B – amounts to.

    They want to use a currency issued by the Bank of England – the clue being in the name; they want to continue to use it and they imagine that the people that issue it will allow them to do so; to use the joint credit card, even though and as they are walking out the door.

    So this is the first time ever that people in a small country, where everyone speaks the same language, are being asked to break up and break up on the basis that they don't have a currency to use.
    There will be no pound. Trust me on that. I came yesterday from Parliament (where) the leaders of the mainstream parties have not changed their minds. An independent Scotland will not have the pound. "

    That was an excellent speech. Galloway is a head case but he is undoubtedly one of the best political orators of his generation.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning all and while I consider Survation to be a less than relevant pollster as I made clear to them on Twitter a couple of days ago, I think Peter Kellner is wrong and he clearly doesn't understand the Scottish political scene.

    He is correct in believing that not everyone who voted SNP in 2011 wants independence. He ignores the fact that 2011 was the watershed election in which the SNP moved from being a party which generally took Tory and LibDem votes and for the first time took wholesale control of many former Labour voters. With the odd exception, in traditional working class areas since 2011 the SNP vote has held up incredibly well. The Aberdeen Donside by-election is a perfect example.

    Those of us who are Scots have always known that the fate of the Referendum will be determined by how the traditional white working class Labour voters who live in the sprawling housing estates on the edge of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the 5 new towns across Central Scotland vote.

    The majority of LibDem voters and the overwhelming majority of Tory voters are committed NO voters. A majority of SNP voters are committed YES voters. It is for the Labour party to deliver its traditional constituency for the NO camp. I fear they are failing miserably. In addition the pollsters are simply not reaching these people. Few now have landlines and even fewer are members of online voting panels. Face to face polling is the only method which is likely to be anywhere near successful in assessing how these people will vote.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    I wonder if any pollster will record a Yes lead.

    Anyway, today's YouGov has "sticks to what he believes in" for Cameron shooting up from 23% to 31%. Not a bad thing for a politician these days, particularly Cameron who some people think is all over the place.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Pollsters v pollsters = Fight!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    So big no vs medium no.

    Should help turnout - which helps no.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    And in other news a Scottish Labour candidate (who I think is female but also appears to have a moustache, probably in fulfilment of some quota or other) has quit after misbehaving.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-candidate-resigns-over-hitler-youth-tweet-1-3462378

    In the comments below that piece someone quotes from a recent George Galloway speech, it merits repeating here;

    "I have been divorced more than once. Trust me it is never ever amicable, whatever anybody tells you. But you can make a deal. You can give the partner who is walking out on you all the CDs the DVDs, the dog, the car – you can give them everything, but the one thing you will never ever give them is the right to continue to use the joint credit card.

    And that is what their plan A – and they have no plan B – amounts to.

    They want to use a currency issued by the Bank of England – the clue being in the name; they want to continue to use it and they imagine that the people that issue it will allow them to do so; to use the joint credit card, even though and as they are walking out the door.

    So this is the first time ever that people in a small country, where everyone speaks the same language, are being asked to break up and break up on the basis that they don't have a currency to use.
    There will be no pound. Trust me on that. I came yesterday from Parliament (where) the leaders of the mainstream parties have not changed their minds. An independent Scotland will not have the pound. "

    Galloway is a fanny of the first order, any idiot quoting him needs their head looking at. He showed how much influence he has at last election , even LD's and Kippers beat him. A numpty washed out has been. The idiot does not even know that the "bank of England is the UK treasury, Doh.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    DavidL said:

    The central thrust of Kellner's critique is that by weighting by the 2011 triumph for the SNP you distort and exaggerate SNP (and hence Yes) support. There is a logic to that position.

    In 2011 SLAB were led by a sub Miliband character called Gray who was spectacularly unimpressive. Salmond, in contrast, had led a minority administration with considerable skill, not rocking the boat unduly, working for consensus in the Parliament and generally, along with his Ministerial team coming over as competent. Given a choice of Salmond or Gray many Scots who would not normally vote SNP went Salmond. One of the reasons they would not normally vote SNP is that they did not support independence.

    OTOH I think it is equally clear that to seek to weight results based on 2010 is to make the same mistake in reverse. The question SLAB put to the Scottish people in 2010 was do you want a Tory government in Westminster and Scotland gave its usual resounding answer to that. Many SNP inclined supporters will no doubt have lent their votes to the cause. So weighting on 2010 is, in my view, equally suspect.

    Doing anything useful with the Euro results is practically impossible given the level of turnout.

    For me, this shows the difficulty in applying party support weighting to a one off question like Independence. People vote for a whole range of reasons at each election. As I have said on here before the Independence campaign is much bigger and broader than Salmond. There is, I think, a strong strand in this campaign of putting it to the English and a determination not to be bullied. There is also the anti tory strand so carefully developed by SLAB over a generation.

    These movements make for strange bedfellows. In my limited canvassing for Better Together I came across a surprising number of 2011 SNP voters who were voting no, supporting Kellner's premise. But there is support across the parties for Independence, particularly amongst the have nots and the hard done bys who might be thought to be traditional Labour supporters.

    In short whilst I understand Kellner's argument I think traditional weighting is even more problematic for this question than he is acknowledging. It frankly worries me that ICM are in the closer result camp. They are the Gold Standard and I would love to read their response.

    Is Kellner not aware that current SLAB leader is worse than Gray and that Ed is thought of in same vein. Add that this is not a general election and it will NOT fall on party lines and you can see his problem.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    DavidL said:

    And in other news a Scottish Labour candidate (who I think is female but also appears to have a moustache, probably in fulfilment of some quota or other) has quit after misbehaving.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-candidate-resigns-over-hitler-youth-tweet-1-3462378

    In the comments below that piece someone quotes from a recent George Galloway speech, it merits repeating here;

    "I have been divorced more than once. Trust me it is never ever amicable, whatever anybody tells you. But you can make a deal. You can give the partner who is walking out on you all the CDs the DVDs, the dog, the car – you can give them everything, but the one thing you will never ever give them is the right to continue to use the joint credit card.

    And that is what their plan A – and they have no plan B – amounts to.

    They want to use a currency issued by the Bank of England – the clue being in the name; they want to continue to use it and they imagine that the people that issue it will allow them to do so; to use the joint credit card, even though and as they are walking out the door.

    So this is the first time ever that people in a small country, where everyone speaks the same language, are being asked to break up and break up on the basis that they don't have a currency to use.
    There will be no pound. Trust me on that. I came yesterday from Parliament (where) the leaders of the mainstream parties have not changed their minds. An independent Scotland will not have the pound. "

    That was an excellent speech. Galloway is a head case but he is undoubtedly one of the best political orators of his generation.
    David , I think WAS is the correct term here, he is now a pathetic shell of his former self, small minded and bitter, ignored and ridiculed in his home country with good cause.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited July 2014

    As can be be seen the firms polling Scottish opinion ahead of the September 18 vote split into two camps: those that have the outcome relatively close and those that have No with a substantial and apparently insurmountable lead.

    Survation, Panelbase and ICM are in the former while YouGov,TNS-BMRB and Ipsos-MORI are in the latter.

    I think TNS-BRMB are in a camp of their own, with their large 28% who don't know.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Survation June 11

    Yes 355 No 417 54% Adjusts to 53%

    Survation Feb Yes 369 No 438

    Yougov

    16 June Yes 348 No 586 71% Adjusts to 60% (Excl DK)

    Interesting that assuming a neutral midpoint of 63% No, 37% Yes (DKs are neccesarily zero in the actual poll) the sample bias of Yougov is so far to No and Survation so far to Yes in their latest polls.

    Finger in the air using a midpoint of both the raw and the cooked:

    60% No 40% Yes
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,561
    edited July 2014
    It's very PB that we're discussing the possible breakup of the UK in terms of it being "a clash of polling methodologies" :-). But that's a giggle, not a criticism - given our focus, it's an interesting issue. I was in Westminster yesterday and chatted to three Scottish Labour MPs. They say YES is outspending NO heavily but they're reasonably confident about the GOTV effort for NO in their patches, contrary to Easterross's assumption. I think NO actually needs some polls to be close to make sure of getting out the troops, though.

    The YF finding that Cameron has bounced on "sticks to what he believes in" with a sample which actually has an increased Labour lead is interesting - presumably showing people trying to be fair but not attaching especial weight to that (hey, I think George Galloway sticks to what he believes in, but have no plans to vote Respect). His main problem is the mere 5% who think he's in touch with the concerns of ordinary people (Miliband 20%). Everyone has poor ratings on that, hence the general disillusion, but the Conservatives do have a particular problem with it, linked to the other frequent finding that 50% think them mainly focused on the needs of the wealthy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    The central thrust of Kellner's critique is that by weighting by the 2011 triumph for the SNP you distort and exaggerate SNP (and hence Yes) support. There is a logic to that position.

    In 2011 SLAB were led by a sub Miliband character called Gray who was spectacularly unimpressive. Salmond, in contrast, had led a minority administration with considerable skill, not rocking the boat unduly, working for consensus in the Parliament and generally, along with his Ministerial team coming over as competent. Given a choice of Salmond or Gray many Scots who would not normally vote SNP went Salmond. One of the reasons they would not normally vote SNP is that they did not support independence.

    OTOH I think it is equally clear that to seek to weight results based on 2010 is to make the same mistake in reverse. The question SLAB put to the Scottish people in 2010 was do you want a Tory government in Westminster and Scotland gave its usual resounding answer to that. Many SNP inclined supporters will no doubt have lent their votes to the cause. So weighting on 2010 is, in my view, equally suspect.

    Doing anything useful with the Euro results is practically impossible given the level of turnout.

    For me, this shows the difficulty in applying party support weighting to a one off question like Independence. People vote for a whole range of reasons at each election. As I have said on here before the Independence campaign is much bigger and broader than Salmond. There is, I think, a strong strand in this campaign of putting it to the English and a determination not to be bullied. There is also the anti tory strand so carefully developed by SLAB over a generation.

    These movements make for strange bedfellows. In my limited canvassing for Better Together I came across a surprising number of 2011 SNP voters who were voting no, supporting Kellner's premise. But there is support across the parties for Independence, particularly amongst the have nots and the hard done bys who might be thought to be traditional Labour supporters.

    In short whilst I understand Kellner's argument I think traditional weighting is even more problematic for this question than he is acknowledging. It frankly worries me that ICM are in the closer result camp. They are the Gold Standard and I would love to read their response.

    Is Kellner not aware that current SLAB leader is worse than Gray and that Ed is thought of in same vein.
    Doesn't matter Malcolm. We are not electing anyone here.

    I think we are in agreement that weighting by party is problematic though.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    On the previous post re Lord Ashcroft polling specifically re Norwich South,I have a sense of incredulity with the sitting MP,a L/D,polled at 8%.Has there ever been such a low poll rating for a sitting MP?
    If the L/Ds don't realise they are going down,down,down-to quote Status Quo-they should now.The only arrow left in their bow is to sack the manager and try for a new start.
    Punting-wise,I am happy with 6/4 over 250 L/D lost deposits.
    Bermondsey will be tough for Labour.Hughes has shown himself to stand up to criminality in his constituency,including threats and intimidation towards him.He is a man of some courage.
    Nevertheless,Labour seem to be doing especially well in London.If the local focus is on the brand rather than the individual people will vote for the party more than the man.Politics is very cruel as Peter Tatchell discovered.Hughes may still suffer in return.
    As a result of all this,Bermondsey is a Lab gain at 2-1 with Ladbrokes.My first constituency bet to small stakes to go with the Popcorn and Kebabs on election night.

    Bermondsey is a fascinating one: 2-1 on Labour sound very good odds.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 664

    Morning all and while I consider Survation to be a less than relevant pollster as I made clear to them on Twitter a couple of days ago, I think Peter Kellner is wrong and he clearly doesn't understand the Scottish political scene.

    He is correct in believing that not everyone who voted SNP in 2011 wants independence. He ignores the fact that 2011 was the watershed election in which the SNP moved from being a party which generally took Tory and LibDem votes and for the first time took wholesale control of many former Labour voters. With the odd exception, in traditional working class areas since 2011 the SNP vote has held up incredibly well. The Aberdeen Donside by-election is a perfect example.

    Those of us who are Scots have always known that the fate of the Referendum will be determined by how the traditional white working class Labour voters who live in the sprawling housing estates on the edge of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the 5 new towns across Central Scotland vote.

    The majority of LibDem voters and the overwhelming majority of Tory voters are committed NO voters. A majority of SNP voters are committed YES voters. It is for the Labour party to deliver its traditional constituency for the NO camp. I fear they are failing miserably. In addition the pollsters are simply not reaching these people. Few now have landlines and even fewer are members of online voting panels. Face to face polling is the only method which is likely to be anywhere near successful in assessing how these people will vote.


    I am in agreement with YouGov based on election data from the last couple of years. The Donside byelection actually confirms YouGov case. While the SNP held the seat they lost about a fifth of their vote from the Holyrood elections. Some of those went back to Labour, some to the Lib Dems and some to UKIP. The euros were not great for the SNP and recent council by-elections have been very disappointing for them.

    Almost all the opinion polls show there will be a strong No vote by Labour. I dont know EasterRoss if you have some great insight on this but I run a factory in Central Belt Scotland. Heartland Labour. The guys on our shopfloor are all No supporters both Catholic and Protestant.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    @Neil (FPT), re Hornsey & Wood Green

    While I would have Labour as favourites here, I don't think they should be a 66+% IP. People have missed a couple of things:

    1. Highgate used to be part of of the Hampstead constituency, and is now part of H&WG. That's a lot of not very left leaning voters in the constituency that were not there in 2005.

    2. Gospel Oak, Muswell Hill, and Alexandra Palace are increasingly affluent suburbs. These (and Highgate) are now naturally Conservative areas.

    At the locals in the constituency it was about 39% Labour to 33% LibDem. While that's a gap, it is no more than in Bermondsey, and there is a larger Conservative vote to squeeze. I would suggest Labour is value in Bermondsey at 2-1, and the LibDems are the value in H&WG.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    The central thrust of Kellner's critique is that by weighting by the 2011 triumph for the SNP you distort and exaggerate SNP (and hence Yes) support. There is a logic to that position.

    In 2011 SLAB were led by a sub Miliband character called Gray who was spectacularly unimpressive. Salmond, in contrast, had led a minority administration with considerable skill, not rocking the boat unduly, working for consensus in the Parliament and generally, along with his Ministerial team coming over as competent. Given a choice of Salmond or Gray many Scots who would not normally vote SNP went Salmond. One of the reasons they would not normally vote SNP is that they did not support independence.


    Doing anything useful with the Euro results is practically impossible given the level of turnout.

    For me, this shows the difficulty in applying party support weighting to a one off question like Independence. People vote for a whole range of reasons at each election. As I have said on here before the Independence campaign is much bigger and broader than Salmond. There is, I think, a strong strand in this campaign of putting it to the English and a determination not to be bullied. There is also the anti tory strand so carefully developed by SLAB over a generation.

    These movements make for strange bedfellows. In my limited canvassing for Better Together I came across a surprising number of 2011 SNP voters who were voting no, supporting Kellner's premise. But there is support across the parties for Independence, particularly amongst the have nots and the hard done bys who might be thought to be traditional Labour supporters.

    In short whilst I understand Kellner's argument I think traditional weighting is even more problematic for this question than he is acknowledging. It frankly worries me that ICM are in the closer result camp. They are the Gold Standard and I would love to read their response.

    Is Kellner not aware that current SLAB leader is worse than Gray and that Ed is thought of in same vein.
    Doesn't matter Malcolm. We are not electing anyone here.

    I think we are in agreement that weighting by party is problematic though.
    seems to me that pollsters are becoming punters, with one- off random factor ad hoc premiums added to whichever is the pollsters preferred demographic. And we won't ever find out who is the "most accurate" pollster, just which one had the luckiest guess this time...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    Centre and Number One Courts start play an hour earlier than usual (at midday).

    Hard to say on polling methodology, as independence votes don't happen very often so it's not like the pollsters can tweak their models based on recent past results, as they can for elections.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    rcs1000 said:

    @Neil (FPT), re Hornsey & Wood Green

    While I would have Labour as favourites here, I don't think they should be a 66+% IP. People have missed a couple of things:

    1. Highgate used to be part of of the Hampstead constituency, and is now part of H&WG. That's a lot of not very left leaning voters in the constituency that were not there in 2005.

    2. Gospel Oak, Muswell Hill, and Alexandra Palace are increasingly affluent suburbs. These (and Highgate) are now naturally Conservative areas.

    At the locals in the constituency it was about 39% Labour to 33% LibDem. While that's a gap, it is no more than in Bermondsey, and there is a larger Conservative vote to squeeze. I would suggest Labour is value in Bermondsey at 2-1, and the LibDems are the value in H&WG.

    rcs1000 said:

    @Neil (FPT), re Hornsey & Wood Green

    While I would have Labour as favourites here, I don't think they should be a 66+% IP. People have missed a couple of things:

    1. Highgate used to be part of of the Hampstead constituency, and is now part of H&WG. That's a lot of not very left leaning voters in the constituency that were not there in 2005.

    2. Gospel Oak, Muswell Hill, and Alexandra Palace are increasingly affluent suburbs. These (and Highgate) are now naturally Conservative areas.

    At the locals in the constituency it was about 39% Labour to 33% LibDem. While that's a gap, it is no more than in Bermondsey, and there is a larger Conservative vote to squeeze. I would suggest Labour is value in Bermondsey at 2-1, and the LibDems are the value in H&WG.

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Vote for change/yes - 100% committed to vote
    Vote for status quo/no - not necessarily 100% committed to vote

    Therefore no is likely to be overstated to some extent.

    Lower the turnover, better the chances for yes
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    Doesn't matter Malcolm. We are not electing anyone here.

    I think we are in agreement that weighting by party is problematic though.

    Well, but political party support is the best predictor of support for independence that there is, so it follows that weighting by party is the most important weighting to apply - and that any mistake in doing so will have a correspondingly large influence on your poll accuracy.

    I don't see why down-weighting the SNP would help, because your sample of SNP-voters should include those who voted for them in 2011 but would not vote for Independence. You would only be justified in down-weighting the SNP if you thought those people were uniquely unlikely to be part of your polling sample - but the polls picked up the swing of these people support from Labour to SNP before the Holyrood elections in 2011, so they obviously are people who talk to opinion pollsters.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    The central thrust of Kellner's critique is that by weighting by the 2011 triumph for the SNP you distort and exaggerate SNP (and hence Yes) support. There is a logic to that position.

    In 2011 SLAB were led by a sub Miliband character called Gray who was spectacularly unimpressive. Salmond, in contrast, had led a minority administration with considerable skill, not rocking the boat unduly, working for consensus in the Parliament and generally, along with his Ministerial team coming over as competent. Given a choice of Salmond or Gray many Scots who would not normally vote SNP went Salmond. One of the reasons they would not normally vote SNP is that they did not support independence.

    OTOH I think it is equally clear that to seek to weight results based on 2010 is to make the same mistake in reverse. The question SLAB put to the Scottish people in 2010 was do you want a Tory government in Westminster and Scotland gave its usual resounding answer to that. Many SNP inclined supporters will no doubt have lent their votes to the cause. So weighting on 2010 is, in my view, equally suspect.

    Doing anything useful with the Euro results is practically impossible given the level of turnout.

    For me, this shows the difficulty in applying party support weighting to a one off question like Independence. People vote for a whole range of reasons at each election. As I have said on here before the Independence campaign is much bigger and broader than Salmond. There is, I think, a strong strand in this campaign of putting it to the English and a determination not to be bullied. There is also the anti tory strand so carefully developed by SLAB over a generation.

    These movements make for strange bedfellows. In my limited canvassing for Better Together I came across a surprising number of 2011 SNP voters who were voting no, supporting Kellner's premise. But there is support across the parties for Independence, particularly amongst the have nots and the hard done bys who might be thought to be traditional Labour supporters.

    In short whilst I understand Kellner's argument I think traditional weighting is even more problematic for this question than he is acknowledging. It frankly worries me that ICM are in the closer result camp. They are the Gold Standard and I would love to read their response.

    Is Kellner not aware that current SLAB leader is worse than Gray and that Ed is thought of in same vein.
    Doesn't matter Malcolm. We are not electing anyone here.

    I think we are in agreement that weighting by party is problematic though.
    David, Yes , I do not bother with the polls as I do not think they are any use in this type of vote.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    Mr Dancer are they trying to clear a weather related backlog?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited July 2014
    Morning All
    Until we know the official outcome next Sept, it’s hard to say which pollster is more right than wrong, they all agree on the same result; it’s just a matter of how big the gap is.

    The only thing of interest is when comparing the two extremes: YouGov & Panelbase, both predicting a NO vote, but there’s quite a difference in projected outcome between the two – which pollster will end up with egg on their face? I suspect it will be the latter.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Morning all and while I consider Survation to be a less than relevant pollster as I made clear to them on Twitter a couple of days ago, I think Peter Kellner is wrong and he clearly doesn't understand the Scottish political scene.

    He is correct in believing that not everyone who voted SNP in 2011 wants independence. He ignores the fact that 2011 was the watershed election in which the SNP moved from being a party which generally took Tory and LibDem votes and for the first time took wholesale control of many former Labour voters. With the odd exception, in traditional working class areas since 2011 the SNP vote has held up incredibly well. The Aberdeen Donside by-election is a perfect example.

    Those of us who are Scots have always known that the fate of the Referendum will be determined by how the traditional white working class Labour voters who live in the sprawling housing estates on the edge of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the 5 new towns across Central Scotland vote.

    The majority of LibDem voters and the overwhelming majority of Tory voters are committed NO voters. A majority of SNP voters are committed YES voters. It is for the Labour party to deliver its traditional constituency for the NO camp. I fear they are failing miserably. In addition the pollsters are simply not reaching these people. Few now have landlines and even fewer are members of online voting panels. Face to face polling is the only method which is likely to be anywhere near successful in assessing how these people will vote.


    I am in agreement with YouGov based on election data from the last couple of years. The Donside byelection actually confirms YouGov case. While the SNP held the seat they lost about a fifth of their vote from the Holyrood elections. Some of those went back to Labour, some to the Lib Dems and some to UKIP. The euros were not great for the SNP and recent council by-elections have been very disappointing for them.

    Almost all the opinion polls show there will be a strong No vote by Labour. I dont know EasterRoss if you have some great insight on this but I run a factory in Central Belt Scotland. Heartland Labour. The guys on our shopfloor are all No supporters both Catholic and Protestant.
    Hamiltonace , if you are in North Lanarkshire or nearby is it any surprise, it is the land that time forgot, when will they get into the 20th century never mind the 21st.
    One of the last bastions of the Orange Lodge and Labour donkeys, what a combination.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Another great day at Strasbourg:

    Tory Kamall leader of ECR group makes maiden speech as leader - non of his party turned up to listen!! pic.twitter.com/WVHqAem4Pz

    — Nathan Gill (@NathanGillMEP) July 2, 2014
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG. But on the basis that it does, I am not sure that London behaves entirely the same way as other parts of the country in terms of property price and voting correlation. I also think that sometimes it's easy to forget the extent of the council estates that exist even in the most affluent areas. Chalk Farm, Gospel Oak, Highgate and even EdM's Dartmouth Park are prime examples. A five bedroomed, £3 million town house might equate to two Tory voters. A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    I shall be in Scotland as July crosses into August and will conduct my own poll of pretty barmaids and hill walking honeys, the results of which I shall share on my return to Norfolk. I expect to come closer to the actual result than Peter 'Labour at least 5% too high/nobody voting yes' Kellner, and if not, it will be fun trying it on :-)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,958
    edited July 2014
    Several years ago, I read a piece about the problem facing American pollsters, because of the concept of split ticketing.

    Because in America, multiple elections are held on the same day, Senate, Gubernatorial, Congress and Presidential, and some people voted for different parties.

    So how do you classify someone who voted Democratic Party for Governor and Congress but Republican for President and Senator on the same day.

    Are they a republican or dem?

    You could class someone who voted Lab in 2010 GE but 2011 SNP (but is planning to vote Lab in 2015) as a split ticketer.

    But dealing incorrectly with split ticketers was a problem for US pollsters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-ticket_voting
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy

  • WitanWitan Posts: 26
    @dizzy_thinks: Blimey.. @unitetheunion want all 80s/90s Union law repealed. Talk about a retrograde step. Secondary action anyone? Mental.

    So false employment stats, Jedi speech,Red Len threat to damage the whole country while funding Labour's campaign, Livingstone demanding a place in a Labour cabinet ( last two not unconnected) and the paymasters demanding a return to Pleistocene Labour Practices.

    Great 36 hours in convincing business Labour can be trusted with the economy.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG. But on the basis that it does, I am not sure that London behaves entirely the same way as other parts of the country in terms of property price and voting correlation. I also think that sometimes it's easy to forget the extent of the council estates that exist even in the most affluent areas. Chalk Farm, Gospel Oak, Highgate and even EdM's Dartmouth Park are prime examples. A five bedroomed, £3 million town house might equate to two Tory voters. A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

    Voting proportionate to property owned would seem a fair solution to this gerrymandering. One vote for the block of flats, one vote for the townhouse.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Witan said:

    @dizzy_thinks: Blimey.. @unitetheunion want all 80s/90s Union law repealed. Talk about a retrograde step. Secondary action anyone? Mental.

    So false employment stats, Jedi speech,Red Len threat to damage the whole country while funding Labour's campaign, Livingstone demanding a place in a Labour cabinet ( last two not unconnected) and the paymasters demanding a return to Pleistocene Labour Practices.

    Great 36 hours in convincing business Labour can be trusted with the economy.

    Labour, taking us where we've never been before - a second world country
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy

    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy

    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.

    It is of course entirely possible I am confused. When I get back to the office I will see how I've been stupid...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG. But on the basis that it does, I am not sure that London behaves entirely the same way as other parts of the country in terms of property price and voting correlation. I also think that sometimes it's easy to forget the extent of the council estates that exist even in the most affluent areas. Chalk Farm, Gospel Oak, Highgate and even EdM's Dartmouth Park are prime examples. A five bedroomed, £3 million town house might equate to two Tory voters. A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

    Voting proportionate to property owned would seem a fair solution to this gerrymandering. One vote for the block of flats, one vote for the townhouse.

    That's too mealy mouthed. I say just let Tories vote.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:



    Galloway is a fanny of the first order, any idiot quoting him needs their head looking at. He showed how much influence he has at last election , even LD's and Kippers beat him. A numpty washed out has been. The idiot does not even know that the "bank of England is the UK treasury, Doh.

    The fact that he is a "fanny of the first order" without influence among the vast majority of the population (although there are slithers where he has strong appeal) doesn't alter the fact that he is a good orator of the old school.

    That said, his mistake was not actually Bank of England vs Treasury. The Bank of England issues the currency.

    His mistake (which he may have deliberately conflated to make the message simple to understand) was to suggest that the rUK cares whether Scots continue to use sterling specie after a yes vote. They don't. What they care about - very strongly - is that iScot won't be able to *borrow* in sterling secured (implicitly or otherwise) against the credit of the UK Treasury.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @RCS etc

    Point of order: there is no such district as Alexandra Palace. There is Muswell Hill on one side and Wood Green on the other.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Jim, sorry for the tardy reply, was away for a bit.

    Yes, in short.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:



    Galloway is a fanny of the first order, any idiot quoting him needs their head looking at. He showed how much influence he has at last election , even LD's and Kippers beat him. A numpty washed out has been. The idiot does not even know that the "bank of England is the UK treasury, Doh.

    The fact that he is a "fanny of the first order" without influence among the vast majority of the population (although there are slithers where he has strong appeal) doesn't alter the fact that he is a good orator of the old school.

    That said, his mistake was not actually Bank of England vs Treasury. The Bank of England issues the currency.

    His mistake (which he may have deliberately conflated to make the message simple to understand) was to suggest that the rUK cares whether Scots continue to use sterling specie after a yes vote. They don't. What they care about - very strongly - is that iScot won't be able to *borrow* in sterling secured (implicitly or otherwise) against the credit of the UK Treasury.

    That remains to be seen. Plenty of bluster at present but if vote is YES we will see big changes and that will focus their minds and perhaps we will see what they really think. They will do anything that helps them regardless, it suits them at present to try and be tough , all bets will be off if YES, who would believe any of the 3 liars would stick to what they said.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...

    True. But the bits closest to H&WG and Gospel Oak are a lot nicer than Gospel Oak, so I am not sure there is any incentive for estate agent led confusion. Hampstead, Highgate, South End Green and Dartmouth Park are far more prestigious. Actually, Dartmouth Park is a pretty new invention itself. When I was growing up around there we were Kentish Town!

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG. But on the basis that it does, I am not sure that London behaves entirely the same way as other parts of the country in terms of property price and voting correlation. I also think that sometimes it's easy to forget the extent of the council estates that exist even in the most affluent areas. Chalk Farm, Gospel Oak, Highgate and even EdM's Dartmouth Park are prime examples. A five bedroomed, £3 million town house might equate to two Tory voters. A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

    Voting proportionate to property owned would seem a fair solution to this gerrymandering. One vote for the block of flats, one vote for the townhouse.

    That's too mealy mouthed. I say just let Tories vote.
    What about a split franchise? Only allow people who have enough assets to pay Inheritance Tax to vote for elections to the House of Lords and only allow people without such assets to vote for elections to the House of Commons.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    F1: Red Bull reckon they have 'options' for their engines from 2016 onwards:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28116193

    Won't be Mercedes or Ferrari, as Horner suggests. If not Renault that means, probably, either Honda or making their own engine. The latter's been raised before and it could happen.
  • I shall be in Scotland as July crosses into August and will conduct my own poll of pretty barmaids and hill walking honeys, the results of which I shall share on my return to Norfolk. I expect to come closer to the actual result than Peter 'Labour at least 5% too high/nobody voting yes' Kellner, and if not, it will be fun trying it on :-)

    We await details of your weighting methodology ....... you don't get many of those to the pound perhaps?

    I'll get me coat.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited July 2014
    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    My own feeling though is that this isn't the only reason for the silence. The Anglophobes have had to recognise that they have comprehensively lost on every single point. It's not been an inconclusive or even a close debate, in the sense that they won on some points, lost on others, and honours are only just not even. On the contrary, the Nits have lost every aspect of every argument.

    They've conceded.

    It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    I shall be in Scotland as July crosses into August and will conduct my own poll of pretty barmaids and hill walking honeys, the results of which I shall share on my return to Norfolk. I expect to come closer to the actual result than Peter 'Labour at least 5% too high/nobody voting yes' Kellner, and if not, it will be fun trying it on :-)

    We await details of your weighting methodology ....... you don't get many of those to the pound perhaps?

    I'll get me coat.
    It's a very complicated weighting, based on honeyness, smile and bite. Never fails. Ever.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG. But on the basis that it does, I am not sure that London behaves entirely the same way as other parts of the country in terms of property price and voting correlation. I also think that sometimes it's easy to forget the extent of the council estates that exist even in the most affluent areas. Chalk Farm, Gospel Oak, Highgate and even EdM's Dartmouth Park are prime examples. A five bedroomed, £3 million town house might equate to two Tory voters. A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

    Voting proportionate to property owned would seem a fair solution to this gerrymandering. One vote for the block of flats, one vote for the townhouse.

    That's too mealy mouthed. I say just let Tories vote.

    We'd still struggle to get a majority
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    My own feeling though is that this isn't the only reason for the silence. The Anglophobes have had to recognise that they have comprehensively lost on every single point. It's not been an inconclusive or even a close debate, in the sense that they won on some points, lost on others, and honours are only just not even. On the contrary, the Nits have lost every aspect of every argument.

    They've conceded.

    It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory.

    Cuckoo, Cuckoo
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Bond, some months to go yet. Black swans could yet appear.

    Who would have predicted the rise of a self-declared caliphate this year? Or the Arab Spring?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:



    Galloway is a fanny of the first order, any idiot quoting him needs their head looking at. He showed how much influence he has at last election , even LD's and Kippers beat him. A numpty washed out has been. The idiot does not even know that the "bank of England is the UK treasury, Doh.

    The fact that he is a "fanny of the first order" without influence among the vast majority of the population (although there are slithers where he has strong appeal) doesn't alter the fact that he is a good orator of the old school.

    That said, his mistake was not actually Bank of England vs Treasury. The Bank of England issues the currency.

    His mistake (which he may have deliberately conflated to make the message simple to understand) was to suggest that the rUK cares whether Scots continue to use sterling specie after a yes vote. They don't. What they care about - very strongly - is that iScot won't be able to *borrow* in sterling secured (implicitly or otherwise) against the credit of the UK Treasury.

    That remains to be seen. Plenty of bluster at present but if vote is YES we will see big changes and that will focus their minds and perhaps we will see what they really think. They will do anything that helps them regardless, it suits them at present to try and be tough , all bets will be off if YES, who would believe any of the 3 liars would stick to what they said.
    Because allowing a foreign country unfettered access to the national balance sheet would be a recipe for disaster.

    Sure, it can be done, but would require iScot to sign up to tight restrictions on fiscal and monetary policy.

    And that's not really independence, is it?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    Not all of SW4 is Clapham, SW2 is split between Brixton and Streatham [Hill]. The bit of SW16 that I lived in was definitely Streatham, but the southern end is certainly not - it's Norbury.

    Postcode districts don't save you from London place name confusion I'm afraid.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I shall be in Scotland as July crosses into August and will conduct my own poll of pretty barmaids and hill walking honeys, the results of which I shall share on my return to Norfolk. I expect to come closer to the actual result than Peter 'Labour at least 5% too high/nobody voting yes' Kellner, and if not, it will be fun trying it on :-)

    We await details of your weighting methodology ....... you don't get many of those to the pound perhaps?

    I'll get me coat.
    I suspect his methodology is very bouncy.

    I'll follow you out the door
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549
    Ordnance Survey have a web app for election maps. See http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    Not all of SW4 is Clapham, SW2 is split between Brixton and Streatham [Hill]. The bit of SW16 that I lived in was definitely Streatham, but the southern end is certainly not - it's Norbury.

    Postcode districts don't save you from London place name confusion I'm afraid.
    Parts of Brixton are really quite UMC these days - for instance, one of Barclay's COOs lives there.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    Perhaps the cyber slush fund has dried up ?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    Postcode districts are for the convenience of the Post Office and often bare no resemblance to administrative districts, boroughs or counties.

    Some years back a friend of mine lived in a village near Stamford and had a Stamford and Lincolnshire post code and address despite the fact the village was located in Rutland.

    He insisted his post was delivered to his Rutland address with the final line the Stamford postcode. The world still turned.



  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    O/T

    While this Tinder story is really rather amusing, why on earth has the Daily Mail chosen to asterisk out the word "whore"?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677289/A-heartless-w-flirts-Muslim-pigs-The-texts-lay-bare-ugly-break-heart-Tinder-sexual-harassment-suit.html

    Off topic - the Metro claims that Victoria Derbyshire leaving 5Live has led to speculation she is going to anchor Newsnight...

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939

    rcs1000 said:

    Agreed on Highgate. Highgate New Town, which is solidly Labour, is not part of H&WG. I don't think Gospel Oak is part of the constituency, but that is most definitely Labour as well - there is a huge council estate slap bang in the middle of it.

    The nicer part of Gospel Oak is part of the constituency! As Camden, Belsize Park, Chalk Farm, Shoreditch, Clapham, etc have become more expensive, it's become one of the classic places for 'first job post University' students to move to. While these are probably more left-leaning than 40 year old hedge fund managers in Highgate, they are less left-leaning than the people they are displacing.

    A small block of council flats essentially taking up the same space might give you 10 Labour voters. You could find both on the same block.

    A small 6-storey block of council flats might give you several hundred Labour votes from the occupants of the 7th to 20th floors, indeed.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Pulpstar said:

    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated

    Do you fancy a little spreadbet on that? I think Yes won't get past 40%, so I would be happy to have say £10 with you per the full % either side of 43%? - this being the mean between your my guess of 40 and yours of 46?

    So at 45% for Yes I'd pay you £20, and at 39% you'd pay me £40.

    Or £5 a point or £1 a point, just a bit of fun really.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    Not all of SW4 is Clapham, SW2 is split between Brixton and Streatham [Hill]. The bit of SW16 that I lived in was definitely Streatham, but the southern end is certainly not - it's Norbury.

    Postcode districts don't save you from London place name confusion I'm afraid.
    Parts of Brixton are really quite UMC these days - for instance, one of Barclay's COOs lives there.
    So I have heard, but the Brixton/Streatham border is still the South Circular, which is not anywhere near a postcode district boundary.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    "It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory."

    Ah, but they weren't English soldiers.

    It was a Welsh regiment The soldiers were mainly Welsh. That is why they sing Men of Harlech in the movie.

    Your post neatly demonstrates one of the very things that the Welsh and Scottish find so irritating about the English.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    edited July 2014

    Pulpstar said:

    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated

    Do you fancy a little spreadbet on that? I think Yes won't get past 40%, so I would be happy to have say £10 with you per the full % either side of 43%? - this being the mean between your my guess of 40 and yours of 46?

    So at 45% for Yes I'd pay you £20, and at 39% you'd pay me £40.

    Or £5 a point or £1 a point, just a bit of fun really.
    I'm not so loaded (Or overly confident in my prediction), I'll do £3 a point for charity if you like ?

    Edit: Minimum of £10 to charity sound OK ?

    Edit 2: £3/point 43% Unders/Overs line Minimum £10 Maximum £30


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Cwsc, welcome to pb.com.

    People often get battles, and those who fight them, wrong. Some battles between 'England' and 'Scotland' largely involved Scots on both sides.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    The funny thing is that while your Clapham = SW4 unquestionably it need not follow in reverse, i.e. that if you're in SW4 you are in Clapham.

    I once bought a flat in W9 which I assumed to be in Maida Vale, because Maida Vale is W9. Imagine my feelings when I later looked it up in the London A-Z, to find that my street could not be seen - because it had "West Kilburn" printed over it.

    It was W9 all right, but there is W9 and there is W9. The clue was in the fact that the nearest Tube station was not Maida Vale or Warwick Avenue, but Queen's Park.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated

    Do you fancy a little spreadbet on that? I think Yes won't get past 40%, so I would be happy to have say £10 with you per the full % either side of 43%? - this being the mean between your my guess of 40 and yours of 46?

    So at 45% for Yes I'd pay you £20, and at 39% you'd pay me £40.

    Or £5 a point or £1 a point, just a bit of fun really.
    I'm not so loaded (Or overly confident in my prediction), I'll do £3 a point for charity if you like ?

    Edit: Minimum of £15 to charity sound OK ?

    £3 is fine - alternatively, do you want to do it on a knockout basis? I.e. my wins below 40, and yours above 46, pay out at a capped 40 and 46? This would limit the payout to £9.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    Not all of SW4 is Clapham, SW2 is split between Brixton and Streatham [Hill]. The bit of SW16 that I lived in was definitely Streatham, but the southern end is certainly not - it's Norbury.

    Postcode districts don't save you from London place name confusion I'm afraid.
    Parts of Brixton are really quite UMC these days - for instance, one of Barclay's COOs lives there.
    So I have heard, but the Brixton/Streatham border is still the South Circular, which is not anywhere near a postcode district boundary.
    Surely St. Reatham...?

    ;-)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    @Bond_James_Bond Does that lot sound OK - So a result of 42 Yes would see me giving a tenner to a charity of your choice; A result of 39 Yes would see me pay out £12; 33 Yes and below £30, Similiarly for the Overs side... 44 Yes You pay a tenner, 47 Yes ses you out of pocket £12, 53 Yes+ Sees you pay the full £30
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,554


    "It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory."

    Ah, but they weren't English soldiers.

    It was a Welsh regiment The soldiers were mainly Welsh. That is why they sing Men of Harlech in the movie.

    Your post neatly demonstrates one of the very things that the Welsh and Scottish find so irritating about the English.

    that is simply not true - the movie has them as a welsh regiment but the details are

    "While most of the men of the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot (1/24) were recruited from the industrial towns and agricultural classes of England, principally from Birmingham and adjacent southwest counties, only 10 soldiers of the 1/24 that fought in the battle were Welsh. Many of the soldiers of the junior battalion, the 2/24, were Welshmen. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, 1 was a Scot, and 3 were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown"

    and as for singing Men of Harlech it was artistic licence at its best but no more....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated

    Do you fancy a little spreadbet on that? I think Yes won't get past 40%, so I would be happy to have say £10 with you per the full % either side of 43%? - this being the mean between your my guess of 40 and yours of 46?

    So at 45% for Yes I'd pay you £20, and at 39% you'd pay me £40.

    Or £5 a point or £1 a point, just a bit of fun really.
    I'm not so loaded (Or overly confident in my prediction), I'll do £3 a point for charity if you like ?

    Edit: Minimum of £15 to charity sound OK ?

    £3 is fine - alternatively, do you want to do it on a knockout basis? I.e. my wins below 40, and yours above 46, pay out at a capped 40 and 46? This would limit the payout to £9.
    See above ^
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2014

    BobaFett said:

    I'd love to see a constituency map as I am struggling to work out how any part of Gospel Oak gets into H&WG....

    Enjoy
    I can't see any part of Gospel Oak in that constituency.
    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Part of the problem is that place names in London can be a bit elastic - witness the way in which West Dulwich now suspiciously borders West Norwood - presumably the people of "East Norwood" preferred to be part of a larger West Dulwich...
    London's postcode districts are fixed and clear. That is all that matters. People will say they live in Clapham, but if they don't live in SW4, they don't live in Clapham. It's that simple.
    The funny thing is that while your Clapham = SW4 unquestionably it need not follow in reverse, i.e. that if you're in SW4 you are in Clapham.

    I once bought a flat in W9 which I assumed to be in Maida Vale, because Maida Vale is W9. Imagine my feelings when I later looked it up in the London A-Z, to find that my street could not be seen - because it had "West Kilburn" printed over it.

    It was W9 all right, but there is W9 and there is W9. The clue was in the fact that the nearest Tube station was not Maida Vale or Warwick Avenue, but Queen's Park.
    W9 .... and West Kilburn .... Oh the shame of it !!

    Back in the day .... well the turn of the 20th century actually Maida Vale used to the haunt of the better class of prostitutes and the homes of the mistresses of the aristocracy .... apparently.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:



    Galloway is a fanny of the first order, any idiot quoting him needs their head looking at. He showed how much influence he has at last election , even LD's and Kippers beat him. A numpty washed out has been. The idiot does not even know that the "bank of England is the UK treasury, Doh.

    The fact that he is a "fanny of the first order" without influence among the vast majority of the population (although there are slithers where he has strong appeal) doesn't alter the fact that he is a good orator of the old school.

    That said, his mistake was not actually Bank of England vs Treasury. The Bank of England issues the currency.

    His mistake (which he may have deliberately conflated to make the message simple to understand) was to suggest that the rUK cares whether Scots continue to use sterling specie after a yes vote. They don't. What they care about - very strongly - is that iScot won't be able to *borrow* in sterling secured (implicitly or otherwise) against the credit of the UK Treasury.

    That remains to be seen. Plenty of bluster at present but if vote is YES we will see big changes and that will focus their minds and perhaps we will see what they really think. They will do anything that helps them regardless, it suits them at present to try and be tough , all bets will be off if YES, who would believe any of the 3 liars would stick to what they said.
    Because allowing a foreign country unfettered access to the national balance sheet would be a recipe for disaster.

    Sure, it can be done, but would require iScot to sign up to tight restrictions on fiscal and monetary policy.

    And that's not really independence, is it?
    Charles, I have heard all the fake arguments, whether currency union is the correct option or not it is still INDEPENDENCE compared to people in Westminster making all the decisions based on the benefits to London and the South East. Whilst we do not have democracy it is pointless. Given the mess of the current UK monetary policy it is a joke to say there would be tight restrictions, given UK is borrowing over £100B per annum , it sounds like a shake may be required. How people can seriously say it would be tough given the pathetic borrowing and wasting of money that currently takes place is hard to get my head round.
    No matter how much Scotland borrowed it could not be as profligate as London.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664


    "It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory."

    Ah, but they weren't English soldiers.

    It was a Welsh regiment The soldiers were mainly Welsh. That is why they sing Men of Harlech in the movie.

    Your post neatly demonstrates one of the very things that the Welsh and Scottish find so irritating about the English.

    And given it's set in southernmost Africa in mid to late summer I don't think it is the heathens who are "bizarrely clad".

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT from Labour List

    The commonly held view is that a Labour candidate will almost certainly be the next Mayor of London. The capital has steadily shifted towards the left as Labour control ever more councils, and in some areas the Greens are now the second largest vote-bloc, not Conservatives. Recent polling put Labour 13 points ahead in London and that lead is very steady.

    But I think there is a scenario in which a Tory candidate succeeds Boris and becomes the next Mayor of London. Londoners are more likely to vote for a Mayor based on personality, charisma, competence and bold ideas than party affiliation, a truism Ken Livingstone grasped in 2000 but forgot by 2012.

    Imagine that a liberal, centrist, ambitious Tory – largely untainted by associations to Cameron – comes forward as a candidate. Someone who has spoken more about the environment than going harder on the cuts. A candidate that could easily sit within the Labour party. Even highly liberal New York voted for centrist billionaire Bloomberg (a former Republican) three times before going for Bill De Blasio.

    I imagine that person to be Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith. He is ambitious and well-connected, but has no future in a Tory government. He is more comfortable building cross-party alliances on issues than standing up dutifully during PMQs with praise for the PM.

    Boris Johnson’s calculations are also relevant here. The current Mayor can see the electoral math and knows Cameron only has a slim chance of a majority next year. To be leader of the party Boris needs to go for a relatively safe seat, ideally in London so he can pretend to do both jobs, and position himself for the aftermath of the General Election. Richmond is ideal.

    http://labourlist.org/2014/07/how-london-could-have-a-tory-mayor-in-2016-again/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496

    Mr. Cwsc, welcome to pb.com.

    People often get battles, and those who fight them, wrong. Some battles between 'England' and 'Scotland' largely involved Scots on both sides.

    Morris , plenty of Welsh , Irish , French etc as mercenaries as well and of course Scots on both sides. It was as ever all down to money much the same as today. The greedy rich wanting ever more for themselves.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Boulay, good to see you on.

    Mr. X, bizarre clothing varies a lot. Not so long ago men wearing tights and tunics was the norm. Trousers were seen as 'barbarian' dress.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:



    Charles, I have heard all the fake arguments, whether currency union is the correct option or not it is still INDEPENDENCE compared to people in Westminster making all the decisions based on the benefits to London and the South East. Whilst we do not have democracy it is pointless. Given the mess of the current UK monetary policy it is a joke to say there would be tight restrictions, given UK is borrowing over £100B per annum , it sounds like a shake may be required. How people can seriously say it would be tough given the pathetic borrowing and wasting of money that currently takes place is hard to get my head round.
    No matter how much Scotland borrowed it could not be as profligate as London.

    I agree that the UK government is profligate. But that is a decision for our politicians and voters.

    If Scotland were independent, then you would be borrowing against the rUK balance sheet without any democratic oversight from the rUK. That's the issue in a nutshell: it creates an unquantifiable and uncontrollable contingent liability, and that's something that even our politicians won't sign up to.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Further to my previous post although I think the true picture is 60-40 now, Salmond will run a good campaign and persuade more DKs than No will.

    Almost by definition YES should get their vote out whereas some No may be apathetic

    So my projection:

    No 54
    Yes 46

    Salmond beaten but not humiliated

    Do you fancy a little spreadbet on that? I think Yes won't get past 40%, so I would be happy to have say £10 with you per the full % either side of 43%? - this being the mean between your my guess of 40 and yours of 46?

    So at 45% for Yes I'd pay you £20, and at 39% you'd pay me £40.

    Or £5 a point or £1 a point, just a bit of fun really.
    I'm not so loaded (Or overly confident in my prediction), I'll do £3 a point for charity if you like ?

    Edit: Minimum of £10 to charity sound OK ?

    Edit 2: £3/point 43% Unders/Overs line Minimum £10 Maximum £30


    Pulpstar , he will start to prevaricate , change his position etc , he is full of wind and piss. Did it to me after his pathetic boasting, a buffoon of the first order.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    edited July 2014
    malcolmg said:

    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    My own feeling though is that this isn't the only reason for the silence. The Anglophobes have had to recognise that they have comprehensively lost on every single point. It's not been an inconclusive or even a close debate, in the sense that they won on some points, lost on others, and honours are only just not even. On the contrary, the Nits have lost every aspect of every argument.

    They've conceded.

    It's like that scene towards the end of Zulu when the plucky English soldiers are waiting, exhausted, for the next onrush of the bizarrely-clad heathen horde. And gradually it dawns on them that the silence bespeaks total victory.

    Cuckoo, Cuckoo
    The quality and wit of Unionist trolling on here has got very poor recently.

    Malcolm, having joined the herd of PBers monitoring that Pop-ular site that can't be named, I see Mick Pork wanted you to be made aware that rather than leaving PB by choice he was and is still banned after a bit of anonymous clyping by one of his fellow posters.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    @Bond_James_Bond

    I've sent you a PM with the finalised Bet details. I think there needs to be a slight premium on being "right" hence the minimum, the spread bet will kick in 4 -> 10 pts out, capped at 10 pts ^_~
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    "Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, 1 was a Scot, and 3 were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown"

    The singing of Men of Harlech was obviously artistic license, I mentioned it simply to emphasise the point that the regiment is not English. It is a Welsh regiment, that is now headquartered at Brecon, and it always had close connections with Wales.

    However, even on your figures, a majority of the soldiers were not English.

    So, it is just not appropriate to describe them as "plucky English soldiers".



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, in fairness to the greedy rich (I'm unconcerned about being greedy, but would quite like to be rich), most people want more. Offer someone a million pounds or ten million pounds and they'll choose the latter.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,496
    TGOHF said:

    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    Perhaps the cyber slush fund has dried up ?
    You wish Flash, not many of your billionaire blood suckers helping NO out , leaving it to the Tories to use public funds to fight their battle.
  • Charles said:

    O/T
    While this Tinder story is really rather amusing, why on earth has the Daily Mail chosen to asterisk out the word "whore"?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677289/A-heartless-w-flirts-Muslim-pigs-The-texts-lay-bare-ugly-break-heart-Tinder-sexual-harassment-suit.html
    Off topic - the Metro claims that Victoria Derbyshire leaving 5Live has led to speculation she is going to anchor Newsnight...

    With two male hosts gone this would be the 2nd new female host.
    Is Newsnight becoming Mumsnight under Mr Mumsnet?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    "'Flawed' Work Programme contracts costing millions, watchdog says"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28113516
    Though, like Universal Credit, the DWP is claiming it is all a lie.
    You have to love figures and statistics don't you? They can prove anything you want.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Just to say I think Pulpstar's prediction of 28 L/Ds is about right,somewhere in the high twenties.I'll go for 27,which includes Lab gain Bermondsey.
    The over-under market offers a little value.Ladbrokes are pricing both over and under the L/Ds number of seats at 10-11 with the cut off figure 33.5.Paddy Power go 8-11& Evens respectively for 33.5 also.
    After the Ashcroft polling,10-11 under, looks the right side of the curve.
    Bet number 2 for GE2015.One for the portfolio.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    There was a time a few months ago on here when every thread, no matter what the subject, was instantly wrecked by buffoons banging on about north Britain and telling us all - from Sweden - about how wa didnae understand what was afoot in the centre of the political universe, Dundee (or wherever). No matter what the rest of us were talking about, all that mattered to a certain nutty tendency was Scotland.

    Some of the more acutely touched in the head posters have departed, so that a blessed near-silence from this tendency now reigns.

    Perhaps the cyber slush fund has dried up ?
    You wish Flash, not many of your billionaire blood suckers helping NO out , leaving it to the Tories to use public funds to fight their battle.
    Yes shocking misuse of the MI6 budget to smear Harry Potter wasn't it ?
This discussion has been closed.