politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As well as poor Corbyn leader ratings Labour has been strug

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As well as poor Corbyn leader ratings Labour has been struggling in local by-elections

The following, produced by Luke Akehurst for Labour List, shows “the change in Labour vote share in all the council by-elections where there has been a Labour candidate (and there was a Labour candidate in the previous contest so a comparison can be made) since the leadership election in September)”

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

Thirst?

I think the flaws in this sort of analysis were mentioned earlier. Still, it's interesting within its limits.

HYUFD

Emerson College GOP primary and General Election

Trump – 36% (32)
Cruz – 21% (6)
Rubio – 13% (14)
Carson – 7% (23)
Christie – 6% (2)
Bush – 6% (8)
Fiorina – 5% (6)
Kasich – 3% (3)
Huckabee – * (4)
Paul – * (0)
Other – * (*)
Undecided – 1% (2)

General Election Matchups
Clinton – 45%
Rubio – 45%

Clinton – 47%
Cruz – 45%

Clinton – 48%
Trump – 46%

Clinton- 46%
Bush – 41%
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_b85d13974aeb4901bd68916b963cea3c.pdf

TCPoliticalBetting

Labour's decline is accelerating. Remarkable decline for a party in opposition. Perhaps not noticed by the Corbynites because things are a little better in London?

HYUFD

Quinnipiac

Trump – 28% (27)
Cruz – 24% (16)
Rubio – 12% (17)
Carson – 10% (16)
Christie – 6% (2)
Bush – 4% (5)
Fiorina – 2% (3)
Paul – 2% (2)
Kasich – 1% (2)
Huckabee – 1% (1)
Santorum – 1% (0)
Pataki – 0% (0)
Gilmore – 0% (0)
Undecided – 8% (8)

General Election Matchups
Clinton – 44%
Cruz – 44%

Clinton – 44%
Rubio – 43%

Clinton – 47%
Trump – 40%

Sanders 43%
Cruz 44%

Sanders 42%
Rubio 45%

Sanders 51%
Trump 38%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311

Danny565

A decline of less than 8% from a council election in May 2012, is still an improvement on their position in May 2015.

HYUFD

Associated Industries Florida

Trump – 29% (33)
Cruz – 18% (3)
Rubio – 17% (7)
Bush – 10% (13)
Carson – 6% (10)
All Others – 8% (14)
Undecided – 12% (20)
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/Florida_Dec2015.pdf

New Hampshire

Trump – 24%
Cruz – 16%
Rubio – 14%
Christie – 13%
Bush – 9%
All Others – 13%
Undecided – 11%
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/NewHampshire_Dec2015.pdf

South Carolina

Trump – 27%
Cruz – 27%
Rubio – 12%
Carson – 11%
Bush – 7%
All Others – 5%
Undecided – 11%
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/SouthCarolina_Dec2015.pdf

HYUFD

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

MarkSenior

Danny565 said:

A decline of less than 8% from a council election in May 2012, is still an improvement on their position in May 2015.

Yes it is pointless and even misleading to give these figures without differentiating between by elections in seats fought previously in May or in 2012/2013/2014 . My own figures show a swing from Conservative to Labour of around 2% in by elections where the seat was previously fought in May ( conservative vote down 6% on average , Labour vote down 2% on average ) but a swing from Labour to Conservative of around 4% where the seat was previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 .

RobD

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Looks like all but Westminster are already Labour seats. Piling up support where it isn't needed.

Danny565

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

welshowl

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Labour in Wales has a different face on the telly though, the distinctly not at all like Corbyn Carwyn Jones and a cohort of traditional Welsh type Labourite ministers and MP's. At present it's a long way from Islington and the Nats here are pretty crap. I'd expect Labour to hang on as a minority post May or in coalition with Plaid or ( if they are both very lucky) the Lib Dems - who may be down to about three or four themselves.

surbiton

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Looks like all but Westminster are already Labour seats. Piling up support where it isn't needed.

In Mayoral elections, a vote in Haringey is the same as a vote in Westminster. Or, did you not know that ?

welshowl

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Wales under the reorganisation of constituencies will drop from 40 to 30 odd. I would guess 5-6 of those will be Labour seats.

RobD

surbiton said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Looks like all but Westminster are already Labour seats. Piling up support where it isn't needed.

In Mayoral elections, a vote in Haringey is the same as a vote in Westminster. Or, did you not know that ?

Of course, but surely sights should be set on the general election, which is what really matters.

JosiasJessop

MarkSenior said:

Danny565 said:

A decline of less than 8% from a council election in May 2012, is still an improvement on their position in May 2015.

Yes it is pointless and even misleading to give these figures without differentiating between by elections in seats fought previously in May or in 2012/2013/2014 . My own figures show a swing from Conservative to Labour of around 2% in by elections where the seat was previously fought in May ( conservative vote down 6% on average , Labour vote down 2% on average ) but a swing from Labour to Conservative of around 4% where the seat was previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 .

On the other hand, what we are most interested in is votes in the 2020 GE. Therefore you also need to take into account the voting difference between those local mid-term votes from the last parliament and what occurred this year.

murali_s

Benn will be leader in early 2017...

(if only!)

HYUFD

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Looks like all but Westminster are already Labour seats. Piling up support where it isn't needed.

Indeed, though there are a few marginals in London and Wales in could pick up even if it loses seats elsewhere

HYUFD

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

HYUFD

welshowl said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Labour in Wales has a different face on the telly though, the distinctly not at all like Corbyn Carwyn Jones and a cohort of traditional Welsh type Labourite ministers and MP's. At present it's a long way from Islington and the Nats here are pretty crap. I'd expect Labour to hang on as a minority post May or in coalition with Plaid or ( if they are both very lucky) the Lib Dems - who may be down to about three or four themselves.

Yes, Labour has won Wales at every General or Assembly election since 1918 and that is unlikely to change

Danny565

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Danny565

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Nope. I'm on record as saying I find it very difficult to see people electing Corbyn as PM (though I find it equally difficult to see George "Bond villain" Osborne performing better than Cameron).

I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories' fantasies about Tory majorities of over 100 and Labour voteshares of less than 20% in 2020, either.

JosiasJessop

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

He is rightly pointing out that you need to take into account when the previous elections occurred. It's also probable that he would not be mentioning it if it did not add a slight polish to the turd that are Labour's recent results.

Mortimer

Pretty grim, but PB cannot exactly be surprised. Nor can the Labour party claim that they were not told what would happen if they elected an unreconstructed Socialist as leader.

As an aside, the Midlands figures are not going to be helped by the leadership's history of IRA sympathy.

Sean_F

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Nope. I'm on record as saying I find it very difficult to see people electing Corbyn as PM (though I find it equally difficult to see George "Bond villain" Osborne performing better than Cameron).

I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories who are fantasising about Tory landslides and Labour voteshares of 15% in 2020, either.

While that's so, the problem for Labour is that most seats being contested in May 2016 were last contested in 2012.

I don't see Labour under Corbyn doing any worse than under Foot, but I can't see the party gaining marginal seats, either.

welshowl

HYUFD said:

welshowl said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Labour in Wales has a different face on the telly though, the distinctly not at all like Corbyn Carwyn Jones and a cohort of traditional Welsh type Labourite ministers and MP's. At present it's a long way from Islington and the Nats here are pretty crap. I'd expect Labour to hang on as a minority post May or in coalition with Plaid or ( if they are both very lucky) the Lib Dems - who may be down to about three or four themselves.

Yes, Labour has won Wales at every General or Assembly election since 1918 and that is unlikely to change

Indeed. If they don't "win" well enough to be in Govt here in some form post May it's curtains totally. They will win well enough on that definition of course, but I doubt how worthwhile it is to try to extrapolate to North Kent, the Midlands, and Lancs and Yorks where 2020 will be won and lost.

UKIP have a fair amount riding on a decent result here in May too, given the top up electoral system favours them winning seats. A poor showing up the Valleys and along the N Wales coast would not bode well for them.

Sandpit

Sean_F said:

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Nope. I'm on record as saying I find it very difficult to see people electing Corbyn as PM (though I find it equally difficult to see George "Bond villain" Osborne performing better than Cameron).

I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories who are fantasising about Tory landslides and Labour voteshares of 15% in 2020, either.

While that's so, the problem for Labour is that most seats being contested in May 2016 were last contested in 2012.

Which makes life even harder for Corbyn to avoid going backwards next May, given Labour's high watermark in 2012.

HYUFD

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

They were held over the course of the Parliament and even at this stage Miliband had already begun to build a poll lead

richardDodd

Labour are well and truly F^cked...and serves them right..

Razedabode

Pretty much in line with what will happen nationally...labour pile on votes where they won't need them I.e. London. Static in Wales, lost in Scotland and damaged in England. There really isn't much to be positîve about.

HYUFD

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Nope. I'm on record as saying I find it very difficult to see people electing Corbyn as PM (though I find it equally difficult to see George "Bond villain" Osborne performing better than Cameron).

I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories' fantasies about Tory majorities of over 100 and Labour voteshares of less than 20% in 2020, either.

Fair enough, and I generally agree. I think Oldham showed there is a surprisingly stupid, sorry, resilient Labour core who will turn out even in the cold rain of November to vote for a party led by a Marxist tramp with terrorist friends, so I don't see Labour going under 20%

Against that, all the polling shows Corbyn doing even WORSE in Scotland than Miliband. And without Scotland a Labour UK win is fantasyland on acid, even a NOM is absurdly difficult.

Barring a total Tory meltdown on Europe (less likely than some believe), I reckon Corbyn would get something between 26-28%, with the Tories on a solid 36ish%

Baxtered, and taking into account changed boundaries, that provides a very workable Tory majority of about 40-50.

The problem for Labour is what then? After another bad defeat? They'll still have the same electoral system for leader. Their members might be even angrier and loopier.

That's the issue. It's hard to see an obvious way out of this mess for the Left. Just defeat after defeat.

The only way out is the way the Tories got out of IDS, a replacement elected by MPs unopposed without consulting members but easier said than done

SimonStClare

I hope Polly doesn’t read PB, the poor dear will be beside herself. Heart of stone not to laugh.

Sandpit

richardDodd said:

Labour are well and truly F^cked...and serves them right..

That's an understatement! Whilst those in charge and their supporters think that being somehow true to the cause is more important than winning elections, then they won't be winning elections.

I'm still of the opinion that SDP2 is the answer, but only if they can get a critical mass of MPs and other elected representatives to make the switch. They'll need 100 of the former, preferably 120 which would make them the largest opposition grouping in the Commons. By the time the moderate MPs realise that the deselections are real it will be too late, they need to do it now. The problem is inertia, they didn't get rid of Brown or Miliband when it was clear they were failures, I can't see them getting together to form SDP2, when for the majority of them Labour is their life and all they've ever known...

Cyclefree

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Fair enough, and I generally agree. I think Oldham showed there is a surprisingly stupid, sorry, resilient Labour core who will turn out even in the cold rain of November to vote for a party led by a Marxist tramp with terrorist friends, so I don't see Labour going under 20%

Against that, all the polling shows Corbyn doing even WORSE in Scotland than Miliband. And without Scotland a Labour UK win is fantasyland on acid, even a NOM is absurdly difficult.

Barring a total Tory meltdown on Europe (less likely than some believe), I reckon Corbyn would get something between 26-28%, with the Tories on a solid 36ish%

The problem for Labour is what then? After another bad defeat? They'll still have the same electoral system for leader. Their members might be even angrier and loopier.

That's the issue. It's hard to see an obvious way out of this mess for the Left. Just defeat after defeat.

Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.

The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.

Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.

Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).

Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?

Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"

rcs1000

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Nope. I'm on record as saying I find it very difficult to see people electing Corbyn as PM (though I find it equally difficult to see George "Bond villain" Osborne performing better than Cameron).

I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories who are fantasising about Tory landslides and Labour voteshares of 15% in 2020, either.

While that's so, the problem for Labour is that most seats being contested in May 2016 were last contested in 2012.

I don't see Labour under Corbyn doing any worse than under Foot, but I can't see the party gaining marginal seats, either.

Corbyn's Labour will do sightly worse than Foot's Labour because Foot still had Scotland. Corbyn's actually making the situation in Scotland even worse, judging by polls.

So knock a point or two off Foot's result, 27.3%, to get Labour in 2020?

= 26%?

The difference is that the 25% that was gotten by the Alliance in 1983 will be split between UKIP, the Greens and the LibDems.

TheScreamingEagles

Something else to consider. From ICM

For our part, it is clear that phone polls steadfastly continue to collect too many Labour voters in the raw sample, and the challenge for phone polling is to find a way to overcome the systematic reasons for doing so. The methodological tweaks that we have introduced since the election in part help mitigate this phenomenon by proxy, but have not overcome the core challenge. In our view, attempting to fully solve sampling bias via post-survey adjustment methods is a step too far and lures the unsuspecting pollster into (further) blase confidence.

We will have more to say on our methods in the coming months.

http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-poll-december-2015

MyBurningEars

What are the Telegraph subs coming to, don't they even use a spell checker any more? They let through "beligerance" on this (quite interesting) piece by Tom Harris:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12063605/Labours-bleak-midwinter-is-just-beginning.-Things-can-only-get-worse.html

(It's the illiteracy that galls me. Even if they can't find a sub who studied Latin these days, perhaps "inter-bellum" might have been a clue something was wrong with this one...)

foxinsoxuk

TheScreamingEagles said:

Something else to consider. From ICM

For our part, it is clear that phone polls steadfastly continue to collect too many Labour voters in the raw sample, and the challenge for phone polling is to find a way to overcome the systematic reasons for doing so. The methodological tweaks that we have introduced since the election in part help mitigate this phenomenon by proxy, but have not overcome the core challenge. In our view, attempting to fully solve sampling bias via post-survey adjustment methods is a step too far and lures the unsuspecting pollster into (further) blase confidence.

We will have more to say on our methods in the coming months.

http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-poll-december-2015

I think my first PB appearance was to argue that point. No amount of post survey weighting can make up for a biased sample.

Which is why Mike is right to emphasise real results from real places. We should learn a lot more in May about Wales, Scotland and London. If these are disastrous then there could be time for a leadership election over the summer. The danger is them being poor rather than a disaster.

My play on Electoral calculus has Labour only going below 100 seats when the %is in the low teens. They are therefore likely to be the Official opposition for a while yet.

kle4

Danny565 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

Are you seriously taking consolation from these results?

Really?

Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories' fantasies about Tory majorities of over 100 and Labour voteshares of less than 20% in 2020, either.

That seems like it has to be the case, but I do wonder how much of that is my gut talking. I think I'll predict Labour to do ok, simply as if I am, amazingly, proven correct, that'll be a feather in my cap.

Dair

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

HYUFD said:

On topic looks like Corbyn has made net gains for Labour in London and Wales since May but net losses elsewhere with the Midlands being particularly hostile to Corbynism

Again, some of those Midlands changes in shares of vote are compared to times in the last parliament when Labour was well ahead in the polls.

On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.

Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.

Corbyn doing even worse than Miliband in the Midlands marginals at this stage is not encouraging for Labour

But the byelections that a lot of these are being compared to were not held "at this stage" in the last parliament.

The question Labour should be asking is when they will next face an election in Scotland where their vote share does not drop.

I don't think this will happen until the mid 2020s at the earliest. They still have a long way to fall.

rcs1000

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

Dair

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

RobD

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

A handy table for your daughter - http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't include either terrorism or child abuse categories.

JosiasJessop

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

I was sad to hear it as well. Five years ago, when he died.

welshowl

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

bigjohnowls

Shropshire – Belle Vue

Labour 546 (47.8 per cent, -28.7 from 2013), Conservatives 282 (24.7 per cent, +1.1), Lib Dems 240 (21 per cent, +21) Green Party 75 (6.6 per cent, +6.6)

Seriously anomilies like this give the data little or no validity No Green No LD formerly in 2013

RobD

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

I was sad to hear it as well. Five years ago, when he died.

The BBC Most Viewed list often chucks up ancient articles for some reason.

RobD

bigjohnowls said:

Shropshire – Belle Vue

Labour 546 (47.8 per cent, -28.7 from 2013), Conservatives 282 (24.7 per cent, +1.1), Lib Dems 240 (21 per cent, +21) Green Party 75 (6.6 per cent, +6.6)

Seriously anomilies like this give the data little or no validity No Green No LD formerly in 2013

How many of them are like that? A clipped mean would remove the outliers quite effectively.

Dair

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

I was sad to hear it as well. Five years ago, when he died.

Lol, so it was, for some reason it was in the BBC news websites "top ten". Never even checked the date.

bigjohnowls

Further evidence of Corbyn collapse FFS#


RISEDALE

Labour 428 [53%; -24.1%]
UKIP 193 [23.9%; +1%]
Conservative 187 [23.1%; +23.1%]
Majority: 235
Labour Hold



Data pretty pointless with so many anomilies.


How is Lab doing in Parliamentary By Elections BTW?

rcs1000

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

A handy table for your daughter - http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't include either terrorism or child abuse categories.

Can I build the perfect religion by picking and choosing at every step?

rcs1000

welshowl said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

I believe he has been considered dead since his opposition to Scottish independence.

bigjohnowls

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Shropshire – Belle Vue

Labour 546 (47.8 per cent, -28.7 from 2013), Conservatives 282 (24.7 per cent, +1.1), Lib Dems 240 (21 per cent, +21) Green Party 75 (6.6 per cent, +6.6)

Seriously anomilies like this give the data little or no validity No Green No LD formerly in 2013

How many of them are like that? A clipped mean would remove the outliers quite effectively.

At least 3

RobD

bigjohnowls said:

Further evidence of Corbyn collapse FFS#


RISEDALE

Labour 428 [53%; -24.1%]
UKIP 193 [23.9%; +1%]
Conservative 187 [23.1%; +23.1%]
Majority: 235
Labour Hold



Data pretty pointless with so many anomilies.


How is Lab doing in Parliamentary By Elections BTW?

So that's 2 out of 68. It'd be foolish to describe the data as pointless.

ReggieCide

Ms Cyclefree

Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.

The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.

Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.

Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).

Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?

Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"


Forgive the crudity but "that's what happens when you get fucked"

JosiasJessop

welshowl said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

His jokes were so bad they lived on after his death. The last Wisdom-inspired joke died today, having been in a coma for fifty years after falling off a ladder as Mr Grimsdale walked underneath during the filming of "A fifties harmless comedy."

Many other jokes are expected to attend the funeral, with the "Knock knock" twins and "Waiter, waiter" giving readings.

welshowl

rcs1000 said:

welshowl said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

I believe he has been considered dead since his opposition to Scottish independence.

So he was popular in Albania but not Alba really then?

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

JosiasJessop

Dair said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

I was sad to hear it as well. Five years ago, when he died.

Lol, so it was, for some reason it was in the BBC news websites "top ten". Never even checked the date.

The ways of the BBC website's top ten read stories are a mystery to everyone. I suspect even the coders who coded it.

(I'd love to see how many views are needed for a story to feature, just to see how easy it would be to game. Also how much they interfere with the process to remove stories).

TheKrakenAwakes

Funnily enough I was looking at something similar for the Lib Dems over the past few months and their council by-election results have shown some impressive increases in vote shares in the last two months +39% in Torbay, +21% in Belle Vue (Shropshire), +25% Smallburgh (Norfolk), +11% Rochford, +19% Hertford Heath and numerous others.

welshowl

JosiasJessop said:

welshowl said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

His jokes were so bad they lived on after his death. The last Wisdom-inspired joke died today, having been in a coma for fifty years after falling off a ladder as Mr Grimsdale walked underneath during the filming of "A fifties harmless comedy."

Many other jokes are expected to attend the funeral, with the "Knock knock" twins and "Waiter, waiter" giving readings.

welshowl

JosiasJessop said:

welshowl said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

??? Didn't he die a few years ago?

His jokes were so bad they lived on after his death. The last Wisdom-inspired joke died today, having been in a coma for fifty years after falling off a ladder as Mr Grimsdale walked underneath during the filming of "A fifties harmless comedy."

Many other jokes are expected to attend the funeral, with the "Knock knock" twins and "Waiter, waiter" giving readings.

Smiles.

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

A handy table for your daughter - http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't include either terrorism or child abuse categories.

Can I build the perfect religion by picking and choosing at every step?

I don't see why not. It's what most religious people do. You surely don't believe that most Catholics believe most Catholic doctrine. You can BE a Catholic while only picking and choosing the bits that work for you.

rcs1000

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Cyclefree

ReggieCide said:

Ms Cyclefree

Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.

The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.

Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.

Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).

Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?

Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"

Forgive the crudity but "that's what happens when you get fucked"

Well, I do forgive you! But I think the "getting fucked" bit happens because there is nothing there rather than the other way around.

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

Rather sad to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom. At least he had a damn good run, IIRC he was still riding motorbikes well into his 80s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192

I was sad to hear it as well. Five years ago, when he died.

Lol, so it was, for some reason it was in the BBC news websites "top ten". Never even checked the date.

The ways of the BBC website's top ten read stories are a mystery to everyone. I suspect even the coders who coded it.

(I'd love to see how many views are needed for a story to feature, just to see how easy it would be to game. Also how much they interfere with the process to remove stories).

For humour value, I might write a Python script that grabbed a bunch of "LibDem by-election victory" stories and elevated them to the top of the most read list. It would cheer OGH up no end

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"

justin124

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

Danny565 said:

A decline of less than 8% from a council election in May 2012, is still an improvement on their position in May 2015.

Yes it is pointless and even misleading to give these figures without differentiating between by elections in seats fought previously in May or in 2012/2013/2014 . My own figures show a swing from Conservative to Labour of around 2% in by elections where the seat was previously fought in May ( conservative vote down 6% on average , Labour vote down 2% on average ) but a swing from Labour to Conservative of around 4% where the seat was previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 .

Your psephology is appreciated, but I think there comes a time when you have to stand back and examine the whacking great wood, rather than scrutinise the bark on individual trees.

Labour have a new leader. Who should be in a honeymoon. They are facing a government which has been in power for 6 years, and is now enacting some very unpopular policies, and is tainted by scandal. The Chancellor is widely disliked. The biggest rival to Labour on the left, the LDs, has all but disappeared.

Labour should be leading in all polls and surging in all by-elections. They are not, they are actually declining, in many places.

It's a dismal state of affairs and sensible Labour pundits are right to be borderline suicidal.

But Labour were doing far worse than this at the same stage of the 1987 Parliament when the Tories enjoyed leads of circa 14/15%.Indeed Labour remained behind the Tories in both the Parliaments of 1987 and 1959 until two years after the previous General Election.

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

As an historian, it is extremely disturbing that the Christ Myth Theory - an idea comprehensively discredited over a century ago - continues to have traction amongst otherwise sane and rational people. Among historians, it has the same level of credibility as creationism or Holocaust Denial - indeed, some CMT books are published by specialist Nazi publishers, e.g. Anthony Hancock.

The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.

A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Well, the Middle East is a very ancient place. They were literate, and discussing religion and philosophy while we were running round bare-arsed.

bigjohnowls

Yes it is pointless and even misleading to give these figures without differentiating between by elections in seats fought previously in May or in 2012/2013/2014 . My own figures show a swing from Conservative to Labour of around 2% in by elections where the seat was previously fought in May ( conservative vote down 6% on average , Labour vote down 2% on average ) but a swing from Labour to Conservative of around 4% where the seat was previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 .

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Further evidence of Corbyn collapse FFS#


RISEDALE

Labour 428 [53%; -24.1%]
UKIP 193 [23.9%; +1%]
Conservative 187 [23.1%; +23.1%]
Majority: 235
Labour Hold



Data pretty pointless with so many anomilies.


How is Lab doing in Parliamentary By Elections BTW?

So that's 2 out of 68. It'd be foolish to describe the data as pointless.

I agree with Mark Senior "pointless" and misleading and 3 of the 3 I looked at were wrong you telling us you believe the other 65 show a Corbyn collapse thats up to you.

Mrs BJ comes from Coal Aston BTW or as this wonderful piece of analysis calls it Coal Ashton which is incorrect.

rcs1000

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

As an historian, it is extremely disturbing that the Christ Myth Theory - an idea comprehensively discredited over a century ago - continues to have traction amongst otherwise sane and rational people. Among historians, it has the same level of credibility as creationism or Holocaust Denial - indeed, some CMT books are published by specialist Nazi publishers, e.g. Anthony Hancock.

The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.

A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.

OK: for you and Cyclefree

The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty compelling, and I don't think anyone should doubt he existed.

I probably shouldn't have shared my friend's response. Damned militant atheists.

RobD

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Not a very good Anglican, is she (not London, but close enough)

volcanopete

It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Well, because people like the sun best and there was more sun in the Middle East than anywhere else so that's where most people were and it was so nice there that they had time to invent stuff like religion and how to use the sun to measure distance and so they started travelling a bit and eventually got to London and it was quite cold there and people were far too busy concentrating on keeping warm and fighting the Scots (this bit is obviously optional also!) to invent another religion but they did tweak it a bit and invent Anglicanism, a sort of special English version of Catholicism (a bit like special editions of Monopoly).

So there is a sort of London religion.

(Of course, if your daughter were a bit more knowing, you could tell her that there is a London religion and it is known as "House Prices" and it is worshipped at special dinners all over parts of London, with special wine and magazines known as the Holy Property Supplement, and it makes some people very happy and others worship it by erecting boards to its God (known as "ForSale" and "Sold") outside their houses.)

RobD

bigjohnowls said:

Yes it is pointless and even misleading to give these figures without differentiating between by elections in seats fought previously in May or in 2012/2013/2014 . My own figures show a swing from Conservative to Labour of around 2% in by elections where the seat was previously fought in May ( conservative vote down 6% on average , Labour vote down 2% on average ) but a swing from Labour to Conservative of around 4% where the seat was previously fought in 2012/2013/2014 .

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Further evidence of Corbyn collapse FFS#


RISEDALE

Labour 428 [53%; -24.1%]
UKIP 193 [23.9%; +1%]
Conservative 187 [23.1%; +23.1%]
Majority: 235
Labour Hold



Data pretty pointless with so many anomilies.


How is Lab doing in Parliamentary By Elections BTW?

So that's 2 out of 68. It'd be foolish to describe the data as pointless.

I agree with Mark Senior "pointless" and misleading and 3 of the 3 I looked at were wrong you telling us you believe the other 65 show a Corbyn collapse thats up to you.

Mrs BJ comes from Coal Aston BTW or as this wonderful piece of analysis calls it Coal Ashton which is incorrect.

That's a selection effect. You probably looked at the three with the biggest Labour decreases.

foxinsoxuk

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:

http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html

"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."

bigjohnowls

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Funnily enough I was looking at something similar for the Lib Dems over the past few months and their council by-election results have shown some impressive increases in vote shares in the last two months +39% in Torbay, +21% in Belle Vue (Shropshire), +25% Smallburgh (Norfolk), +11% Rochford, +19% Hertford Heath and numerous others.

Didnt stand previously in Belle Vue and possibly some others

rcs1000

Cyclefree said:

(Of course, if your daughter were a bit more knowing, you could tell her that there is a London religion and it is known as "House Prices" and it is worshipped at special dinners all over parts of London, with special wine and magazines known as the Holy Property Supplement, and it makes some people very happy and others worship it by erecting boards to its God (known as "ForSale" and "Sold") outside their houses.)

She's just about gullible enough that I might get away with that. The Holy Church of Foxtons has a nice ring to it

Sean_F

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

As an historian, it is extremely disturbing that the Christ Myth Theory - an idea comprehensively discredited over a century ago - continues to have traction amongst otherwise sane and rational people. Among historians, it has the same level of credibility as creationism or Holocaust Denial - indeed, some CMT books are published by specialist Nazi publishers, e.g. Anthony Hancock.

The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.

A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.

The view that Jesus Christ didn't exist is pretty much the province of cranks ( of course, whether he either was, or claimed to be, the Son of God is another matter entirely).

rcs1000

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:

http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html

"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."

You learn something every day. Thank you

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

As an historian, it is extremely disturbing that the Christ Myth Theory - an idea comprehensively discredited over a century ago - continues to have traction amongst otherwise sane and rational people. Among historians, it has the same level of credibility as creationism or Holocaust Denial - indeed, some CMT books are published by specialist Nazi publishers, e.g. Anthony Hancock.

The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.

A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.

OK: for you and Cyclefree

The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty compelling, and I don't think anyone should doubt he existed.

I probably shouldn't have shared my friend's response. Damned militant atheists.

You don't need to persuade me. Anyway, I like teasing atheists. They can become so humourless.

TheScreamingEagles

William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party

Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12064244/Why-I-will-be-voting-to-stay-in-Europe.html

justin124

Those figures are highly misleading. Just to take the recent by election in Rochford - Labour vote down by 16% BUT they gained the seat from the Tories who lost even more!

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

(Of course, if your daughter were a bit more knowing, you could tell her that there is a London religion and it is known as "House Prices" and it is worshipped at special dinners all over parts of London, with special wine and magazines known as the Holy Property Supplement, and it makes some people very happy and others worship it by erecting boards to its God (known as "ForSale" and "Sold") outside their houses.)

She's just about gullible enough that I might get away with that. The Holy Church of Foxtons has a nice ring to it

With its saints of course: St Benham and St Reeves have a nice ring to them! Oh and the Bishop of Folkard and Hayward.

Theuniondivvie

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"

Well..

http://tinyurl.com/z8ypsxl

Razedabode

volcanopete said:

It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.

I'd say a strategy of simply waiting for the economy to go tits up is pretty depressing. And yet probably labours only glimmer of hope. Actually, I'm not even sure if people would go for Corbyn If that were the choice.

Interestingly, good ole thornberry was saying the jobs miracle was a myth because many were 0 hour contracts. It seems to be labour will be rehashing exactly the same arguments that lost them the last election. And it's not even true.

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Well, the Middle East is a very ancient place. They were literate, and discussing religion and philosophy while we were running round bare-arsed.

"Will God be angry if I choose the wrong religion?"

Ouch.

I've gone with. "Julia, no one knows if God exists and that's something you have to choose for yourself. If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK. Now, if you go to bed now you can read Harry Potter for 20 minutes before I call lights out."

"OK dad!"

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party

Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12064244/Why-I-will-be-voting-to-stay-in-Europe.html

William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.

ydoethur

OK: for you and Cyclefree

The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty compelling, and I don't think anyone should doubt he existed.

I probably shouldn't have shared my friend's response. Damned militant atheists.

No, you should have done. Because I find all those who falsify history for political or religious ends a menace, and I know there are some people on here who have been gulled by these fraudsters. If any such are around, please read the link.

As long as such people as say Richard Carrier are around and peddling their lies (I have made an in-depth study of his work and that word is fully justified) they have to be challenged. Otherwise we run the risk of ending up in an Orwellian nightmare of a falsified past.

It should be noted incidentally that it is not the strange conclusion that causes the problems - it is the deliberate falsification of evidence to support it, e.g. Dorothy Murdock unforgettably claiming the Romans of that time spoke English and building a whole untenable thesis on that unbelievable lie.

Wanderer

Cyclefree said:

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I would say that Jesus was probably not imaginary but that he probably didn't imagine he was the Son of God. That's to say, the aspect of his story that has him believe that is probably a later invention (and something that would have horrified him).

rcs1000

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"

Well..

http://tinyurl.com/z8ypsxl

My wife and I shared a bottle of Chateau Musar on our first date

Charles

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"

Although Anglicanism is a pretty good attempt at a British-style religion.

(My daughter is younger, so this week we are celebrating the birthday of someone who did something very important to help everyone)

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party

Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12064244/Why-I-will-be-voting-to-stay-in-Europe.html

William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.

Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?

RobD

justin124 said:

Those figures are highly misleading. Just to take the recent by election in Rochford - Labour vote down by 16% BUT they gained the seat from the Tories who lost even more!

No. Very few of the figures are "highly misleading".

justin124

Razedabode said:

volcanopete said:

It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.

I'd say a strategy of simply waiting for the economy to go tits up is pretty depressing. And yet probably labours only glimmer of hope. Actually, I'm not even sure if people would go for Corbyn If that were the choice.

Interestingly, good ole thornberry was saying the jobs miracle was a myth because many were 0 hour contracts. It seems to be labour will be rehashing exactly the same arguments that lost them the last election. And it's not even true.

It would be much the same strategy the Tories had pre-2008!

rcs1000

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"

Although Anglicanism is a pretty good attempt at a British-style religion.

(My daughter is younger, so this week we are celebrating the birthday of someone who did something very important to help everyone)

Samuel L Jackson?

foxinsoxuk

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:

http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html

"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."

You learn something every day. Thank you

Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.

I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!

Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.

TCPoliticalBetting

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party

Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12064244/Why-I-will-be-voting-to-stay-in-Europe.html

William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.

Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?

Is a Europhile someone who will vote to stay in the EC no matter what deal Cameron does?

YBarddCwsc

Tend to agree with BJO that the data are too riddled with biases and selection effects to tell us anything useful.

Take Wales. The standout result is Kidwelly -10.6 %.

But, Kidwelly should be taken out because the Labour candidate (a former mayor) had resigned from the Council, faced criminal charges, made a grovelling admission of inappropriate behaviour ("I accept that I was intoxicated and that my conduct may have been inappropriate as a result . . . I wish to apologise for any offence caused").

He was subsequently acquitted of indecent assault and (because this is Welsh Labour) re-adopted as a Labour candidate, and (because this is Wales) re-elected as Councillor, albeit with a whopping swing against him.

Take Kidwelly out, and Labour are +2.18 in Wales.

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")

Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?

I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.

I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).

Would that help?

Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:

"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"

Well, the Middle East is a very ancient place. They were literate, and discussing religion and philosophy while we were running round bare-arsed.

"Will God be angry if I choose the wrong religion?"

Ouch.

I've gone with. "Julia, no one knows if God exists and that's something you have to choose for yourself. If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK. Now, if you go to bed now you can read Harry Potter for 20 minutes before I call lights out."

"OK dad!"

That's pretty good. Whatever your religion or even if you have none: "Do as you would be done by" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" strike me as pretty good maxims for living. I like the St Paul letter re the greatest of faith, hope and love being love.

As the poet said: "All that remains of us is love."