Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the voters moved on May 7th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the voters moved on May 7th
The graphic shows the various migrations of one hundred typical voters from 2010 to now. Voters who have switched from one party to another are shown moving along the corresponding arrow. “Lost” supporters are shown in grey, and “gained” supporters carry a white plus sign.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1. Corbyn
2. Burnham
3. Cooper
4. Kendall
Of the countries you list, one of the wealthiest is Saudi Arabia. And it is notable for how many of those who perpetrate atrocities come from there, including - for instance - the suicide bomber who blew himself up in Kuwait a few days ago. It is also notable as being the country which has funded many of the madrassahs and other institutions which perpetuate the ideology behind IS, Al Qaeda and the rest. And there have been even more serious allegations made against some of its wealthiest citizens.
Many of the terrorists, far from being poor and hopeless, are well educated and wealthy and, apparently, integrated into a Western lifestyle.
While it is a good thing to make poor countries richer, if the effect of, say, an education system funded by the Saudis is to create people who despise the West, think that there should be no freedom of religion and that women are third class citizens, then spreading the wealth will do no good at all. What's more people want - and need - something more than money. It is necessary for a worthwhile life. It is not sufficient. There is more to life than getting and spending. Islam provides a belief system. It is a failing in Western analyses which see everything through economics and only that to fail to understand that people can have other drivers and motivations. Western analysis often forgets its own bloody religious history, indeed its own religion and tends, therefore, to underestimate or misunderstand completely the mindset of people who have a culture where religion is not some add-on but is central to everyday life.
Rather than encourage Saudi Arabia to spread its ideology I would be doing quite the opposite. I do not regard it as an ally in any meaningful sense. Its values are wholly antithetical to Western values and its role in spreading Wahabi-Islam has been utterly malign. To give a small example: IS has said that it wants to destroy all evidence of any cultures or civilizations other than Islam in the areas it controls. The chief Saudi cleric takes exactly the same view. One may do it with violence and the other only say it. But in essence they want the same thing.
At least we could then have Eds Missus is Crap is PM (EMICIPM) for 4 years!!
Ms Cyclefree this comment is meant to be tongue in cheek and not at all sexist!!
Tsipras just said on TV that if the referendum is YES he will resign and call for early elections, which he will probably win so it will be back to step 1 even if YES wins.
EMWNBPM
Specifically he said that he wants to stay in the euro however the government has a responsibility to restore liquidity and normal services and that Greece can survive economically, and then he quoted Churchill.
So that leaves Yvette Cooper, who is a bit of a blank canvass, but that's no bad thing.
If Kendall became leader i would not vote Lab in 2020.
In fact TBH struggling to support my MP who is Kendalls main organiser.
Cant understand why he cannot see what a divisive figure she is.
Kendall is in the wrong party too Methinks
Trump's presidential campaign is making progress...
"US TV network NBC fires Donald Trump over Mexico comments"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33321290
Kendall is the best chance for Labour to win in 2020.
Which means she hasn't a hope of becoming leader.
Could be wrong though.
Still couldnt stomach voting for a Kendall led party
Would show other candidates that a fair bit of LABs support will not tolerate a swing to the right of LK proportions
Wonder what happens if he wins that?
They should heed it.
Incidentally, as much as I hate to admit it having argued against the theory repeatedly, it does rather prove OGH's posts about the significance of the 2010LDs to the Labour strategy. Indeed, other electoral moves were perhaps masked by it. I think he was bang on to highlight their importance, and the result of the election not as disproportionately different to what he proposed. Only by misjudging the extent of the LD failure in the South, and the slightly more complex reality of the LD splits to all parties was the result so far from his predictions. Unlucky, Mike. I still think your analysis is generally far more insightful than almost all regularly posting pundits!
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/615614720339496960
Would just like to clarify I am not a senior tory!
I don't see how the EU could back down from moving towards ejecting Greece from the Eurozone in the event of a No vote. They'd lose all credibility.
After May 7th results, I will be going with my instincts rather than polls from now on.
Mind you none of the options are going to be supported by all labour members..
* they can temporarily suspend Greece ("temporary" of course is "infinity minus one second")
* they can note, but not count, Greece's vote
* they can refuse liquidity to Greek banks
* they can meet in another room as an ad-hoc group and deny Greece access to that room
* they can remove the licence of the Bank of Greece to print Euros
* they can remove Greek bank access to Target2, and all the other settlement/transfer systems which I don't pretend to understand
Ultimately, they can simply dissolve the Eurozone and reconstitute itself as an enhanced cooperation body sans Greece. Push them hard enough and they can push back.
I think you're trapped in a great big bubble, lad. The internet often does that kind of thing.
Ask 100 randomly selected people whether they recognise the candidates or know anything about them. Most people really do not have much clue about something as wonky as an opposition party's internal shuffle-about.
Face it, the fact you can even recognise all four of them and know their names makes you a bit of a weirdo, in national terms. The fact you not only know of them, but actually have opinions on all four of them makes you a fully-qualified weirdo.
Nowt wrong with being a fully-qualified weirdo, but we do like to cluster, and sometimes we forget just how weird we are.
They can simply abolish them and make new ones.
Though Huckabee has stormed in the lead on the back of gay marriage.
http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,LIKELYR:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150601-20150629/collapsed/false
Top 10 (who will be on the TV debates) so far:
Huckabee
Bush
Trump
Carson
Walker
Rubio
Paul
Cruz
Perry
Jindal or Fiorina
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
A recovery after such an event usually never happens as it's impossible to glue together the formal coalition of voters by either moving in one direction or the other or simply staying still.
- Defections from Labour to UKIP in earnest are still to come
- The Liberal Democrats have an impossible job winning back support, due to losing it in all directions
- The scale of anti-austerity Lib Dems defecting to Labour makes it very hard to become a fiscally prudent party again
- The Conservatives are becoming a less eurosceptic party
It's a 2009 paper by the European Commission's DG ECFIN, entitled "The euro: It can’t happen. It’s a bad idea. It won’t last. US economists on the EMU, 1989 - 2002".
It is a celebration of ten years of the euro that cocks a snoop at all the economic nay-sayers, explaining how the success of the euro has demolished their criticisms. I find particularly poignant the smug section in the middle on how US economists misunderstood the role of political integration. The Yanks fell into two camps: those who miscalculated the political costs of pooled sovereignty necessary for monetary union, and thought it would be too high to make the euro worthwhile, and those who believed there was a political will for ever-closer union that would drive EMU but as part of a wider, deeper process of integration. None of the shortsighted American idiots - misled by their own experience of a successful currency union with deep fiscal and political union - had considered that the Euro could be a runaway success story without the need for further integration.
Ahem.
And then we come to the press release of 22 June,
Of course this will not stop the Greeks from continuing to use the Euro as their domestic currency in the same way as Panama does for the dollar. This is another similarity to the sort of nonsense that we used to get from the SNP who pointed out that they could continue to use the pound in the same way.
But Greece will cease to be a member of the Euro system as of tomorrow when the current funding arrangements run out. It really doesn't matter how they vote just like the SNP supporters claimed that their votes could somehow determine what rUK would do with their currency. Once they are no longer members they will have no access to further borrowing from the ECB. As a country in default they will have no access to the market either. They are going to run out of money in a serious way fairly quickly.
So do they go down the dollarization route or the new currency route? Neither is attractive without IMF emergency funding. I would not rule out the EZ providing some emergency funding simply to stop or slow down the tide of refugees they are otherwise likely to suffer from (as are we).
It is rather difficult to think of a worst outcome that the Greeks have achieved. If they think this is the best outcome in terms of game theory I can only presume some of the other outcomes involved a nuclear strike.
So the Greeks vote no and they default and probably have to then print own currency and as good as depart euro
Greeks vote yes, government resigns new elections held but before that they go bust print their own currency and as good as deprt euro
Meanwhile Italy and others warn Greece if they vote no they are out of the Euro
Is there anyway they can stay in at this point??? Anything they can do?? At all?
Australia and New Zealand will meet in cricket's first day-night Test match later this year.
http://bbc.in/1GLlGmh
Although, granted, I would actually be able to watch more cricket if it was day night.
Tspiras has stated tonight they don't have the 1.5 billion to pay to the IMF tomorrow so game over. His financial ministerial adviser stated that they will see what happens in the morning.
Is there a time it has to be paid like 1200 CET or simply before midnight on due date?