politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast
On this week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast we continue the new format of the show where each guest picks a polling or elections topic to talk about and the group discuss it.
@afneil: Nick Cohen in The Spectator. Long and detailed read Why you shouldn’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn https://t.co/OGZvQQDb0G
Leaving aside the obvious joke that the reason you shouldn't vote for Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need to be a long article, just put up his name, it's useful to get a pretty comprehensive list of most of the key criticisms. However...
It starts on what I find to be a slightly flawed and overly optimistic premise, common in politics, that too many of his supporters don't know these things('What I discovered was that [Thoughtful, moderately Left-Wing Corbyn supporters] knew almost no facts about him or his fellow travellers) and, implicitly, can therefore be woken up if only they realise.
The problems being:
a) All those criticisms have been widely circulated, some well before he became leader. If those 'thoughtful moderate' types really are not aware of them by now, with non-Corbynites and Tories blaring them out constantly for over a year, then they have avoided those point by choice, steering away from them, since as Corbyn supporters they are explicitly more politically inclined than most people, and the target for that information, and yet still missed it. b) Even if they become aware of those facts, there's no guarantee it would bother them. Yes, some would, we've seen the previously loyal turn coup plotter over some of them, but witness how many, upon discovering he has done something from that list, then defend it vociferously or use distraction tactics. It's tribalism at work, and no end of people defend near every one of those negative points.
It'd be nice to think if only people are told fact x they will realise they are on the wrong path, they'll realise socialism/Thatcherism/whateverism is the one true way if only they understood, but I think it would take a lot more practical impact before it happened.
Don's 'Too close to call' stance is, bizarrely, one of the most daring predictions in recent times. If he's right, will it be sheer bloody minded stubborness and luck, or outstanding political nous?
Don's 'Too close to call' stance is, bizarrely, one of the most daring predictions in recent times. If he's right, will it be sheer bloody minded stubborness and luck, or outstanding political nous?
Did we ever find out if Don't Know scored higher than Smith in that one particular poll?
Don's 'Too close to call' stance is, bizarrely, one of the most daring predictions in recent times. If he's right, will it be sheer bloody minded stubborness and luck, or outstanding political nous?
Don has made some very ballsy calls in the past that have turned out to be very accurate.
As Mike will tell you, Don was responsible for Mike winning lots of money on Harriet Harman becoming Deputy Leader in 2007 when everyone else was saying Alan Johnson was nailed on.
Don was working on the campaign, and he knew his stuff.
Don's 'Too close to call' stance is, bizarrely, one of the most daring predictions in recent times. If he's right, will it be sheer bloody minded stubborness and luck, or outstanding political nous?
He's working for Smith's campaign.
"Don Brind who regularly contributes to the PB site and is currently working with Saving Labour on Owen Smith’s leadership campaign."
If Owen Smith hasn't admitted defeat in public yet, why should Don Brind who works for him do so publicly ?
I actually have issues with almost everything on that page. Overly triumphant headline. Will misses his mum is news? There's a dark reality why a handsome bloke with abs is going shirtless?
I didn't know Don was actually working with Saving Labour on Owen's campaign. I'm sure no harm was intended, but it would probably be good if article contributors to PB indicated any personal involvement they have in what they're writing about?
Wrong. The GERS report was Good For Yes. No ifs, no buts.
But, Mr. D., there was that independence minded lady (scotslass?) on here this morning telling us that GERS was complete rubbish and should be discarded. So if an independence supporter tells us that GERS is rubbish but GERS actually supports the case for independence where the feck does that leave us?
"The Stronger In campaign has finally thrown in the towel, all those corporate millions, Roland Rudd’s spin, Cameron and Osborne’s careers and all they have to show for it is a Commander of the British Empire for Will Straw. Will says the “Stronger In” organisation is no longer.
Which is amateurism until the end. The database built up at great expense cannot therefore legally be used by another organisation."
Wrong. The GERS report was Good For Yes. No ifs, no buts.
But, Mr. D., there was that independence minded lady (scotslass?) on here this morning telling us that GERS was complete rubbish and should be discarded. So if an independence supporter tells us that GERS is rubbish but GERS actually supports the case for independence where the feck does that leave us?
I worry sometimes.
I admit it, I made it up that it was Good For Yes.
I didn't know Don was actually working with Saving Labour on Owen's campaign. I'm sure no harm was intended, but it would probably be good if article contributors to PB indicated any personal involvement they have in what they're writing about?
Wrong. The GERS report was Good For Yes. No ifs, no buts.
The Zoomers on my timeline are in meltdown
Apparently it's all wrong because Scotch Whisky is often exported through England, and when you take that into account by adding that revenue to the Scottish economy you see that it is actually booming.
Don hoping Saving Labour are the new Messina/Crosby.
Well his rosiest picture for his own campaign involves winning by 3000 votes, on the back of registered supporters and Trade Unionists breaking almost 2-1 in favour of Smith:
I didn't know Don was actually working with Saving Labour on Owen's campaign. I'm sure no harm was intended, but it would probably be good if article contributors to PB indicated any personal involvement they have in what they're writing about?
Yes I agree - this is a betting site after all.
Indeed I made fun of Don Brind without knowing he was working for Smith.
I though he was just an idiot making a fool of himself by spamming "Smith has a chance" on PB all the time, while in fact that was his job.
No one should be ashamed of his job, but certainly he should say beforehand that he is biased due to his present employment.
In my browsing of my splendid present of Erskine May I note that rather sneakily, in order to cut down on space, detailed explanations of some procedures and precedents (the context and reason for them particularly) are referenced as being in older editions, so really you need the whole set.
The Lords apparently rule that reading of speeches is 'alien to the customs of the House and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates'. If you do need to have some notes, they are not supposed to follow them too closely.
May being blamed for Brexit on the podcast. I imagine if things go poorly that might become more pronounced a view.
It really is over. I wonder how our pb cybernats will react.
You yourself voted for Brexit whilst admitting it might well be very bad for the economy.
Maybe the Scots will follow your lead and vote for Independence, economics be damned
45% already did. My fear is another 5% will, but fortunately I appear to be the most pessimistic about that.
The fact May's first visit as PM was to Sturgeon and her second to Merkel and her first No 10 speech invoked the Union shows her priority number 1 is to keep Scotland in the UK, so there will be no hard BREXIT. Some sort of free trade fudge will be agreed, which will be enough for Sturgeon, after a lot of huffing and puffing, to avoid indyref2.
Wrong. The GERS report was Good For Yes. No ifs, no buts.
But, Mr. D., there was that independence minded lady (scotslass?) on here this morning telling us that GERS was complete rubbish and should be discarded. So if an independence supporter tells us that GERS is rubbish but GERS actually supports the case for independence where the feck does that leave us?
It really is over. I wonder how our pb cybernats will react.
You yourself voted for Brexit whilst admitting it might well be very bad for the economy.
Maybe the Scots will follow your lead and vote for Independence, economics be damned
45% already did. My fear is another 5% will, but fortunately I appear to be the most pessimistic about that.
The fact May's first visit as PM was to Sturgeon and her second to Merkel and her first No 10 speech invoked the Union shows her priority number 1 is to keep Scotland in the UK, so there will be no hard BREXIT. Some sort of free trade fudge will be agreed, which will be enough for Sturgeon, after a lot of huffing and puffing, to avoid indyref2.
Nothing will be enough for the SNP, it won't be taken off the table she will say some guff about the Scottish people not calling for it I.e independence is below 60% in the polls.
I didn't know Don was actually working with Saving Labour on Owen's campaign. I'm sure no harm was intended, but it would probably be good if article contributors to PB indicated any personal involvement they have in what they're writing about?
Yes I agree - this is a betting site after all.
Indeed I made fun of Don Brind without knowing he was working for Smith.
I though he was just an idiot making a fool of himself by spamming "Smith has a chance" on PB all the time, while in fact that was his job.
No one should be ashamed of his job, but certainly he should say beforehand that he is biased due to his present employment.
It really is over. I wonder how our pb cybernats will react.
You yourself voted for Brexit whilst admitting it might well be very bad for the economy.
Maybe the Scots will follow your lead and vote for Independence, economics be damned
45% already did. My fear is another 5% will, but fortunately I appear to be the most pessimistic about that.
The fact May's first visit as PM was to Sturgeon and her second to Merkel and her first No 10 speech invoked the Union shows her priority number 1 is to keep Scotland in the UK, so there will be no hard BREXIT. Some sort of free trade fudge will be agreed, which will be enough for Sturgeon, after a lot of huffing and puffing, to avoid indyref2.
Nothing will be enough for the SNP, it won't be taken off the table she will say some guff about the Scottish people not calling for it I.e independence is below 60% in the polls.
Yes but the reason independence will not be as high in the polls as the SNP hope is that May is more popular in Scotland than Cameron and she will do a BREXIT fudge, not a hard BREXIT
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
No oil, no independence.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
I know you base a lot on the debates for Trump, but there is an issue beyond the known ones.
The moderators.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has delayed it's decision to appoint moderators because it has trouble finding a journalist that hasn't got ties to the nominees or had a public spat with ( finding one that Trump hasn't got into a fight with is impossible).
I know you base a lot on the debates for Trump, but there is an issue beyond the known ones.
The moderators.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has delayed it's decision to appoint moderators because it has trouble finding a journalist that hasn't got ties to the nominees or had a public spat with ( finding one that Trump hasn't got into a fight with is impossible).
I know you base a lot on the debates for Trump, but there is an issue beyond the known ones.
The moderators.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has delayed it's decision to appoint moderators because it has trouble finding a journalist that hasn't got ties to the nominees or had a public spat with ( finding one that Trump hasn't got into a fight with is impossible).
The pollster who has Hillary leading by 12 points nationally has her tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
"The candidates are running about even in eight states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, and the polling sample is too small to determine the winner in Alaska, Wyoming and Washington D.C. "
Worst thing about it is that it's not even a proper poll:
"The project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios"
The pollster who has Hillary leading by 12 points nationally has her tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
"The candidates are running about even in eight states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, and the polling sample is too small to determine the winner in Alaska, Wyoming and Washington D.C. "
Worst thing about it is that it's not even a proper poll:
"The project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios"
It really is over. I wonder how our pb cybernats will react.
You yourself voted for Brexit whilst admitting it might well be very bad for the economy.
Maybe the Scots will follow your lead and vote for Independence, economics be damned
45% already did. My fear is another 5% will, but fortunately I appear to be the most pessimistic about that.
The fact May's first visit as PM was to Sturgeon and her second to Merkel and her first No 10 speech invoked the Union shows her priority number 1 is to keep Scotland in the UK, so there will be no hard BREXIT. Some sort of free trade fudge will be agreed, which will be enough for Sturgeon, after a lot of huffing and puffing, to avoid indyref2.
A free trade agreement between the EU and the UK would still be Brexit. Indeed, it would still be 'hard' Brexit. The only person who'd be disappointed would be LovinPutin1983 who hankers after the UK joining the Russian customs union.
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
She may call for one, hoping May would say No. That would be Sturgeon's dream scenario.
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
That's a very interesting set of results. The Trump "Great Lakes" strategy would seem to be working in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisonsin and Michigan. But would seem to be falling short in Ohio.
But. It's failing in Florida (big time), and Virginia.
If the race tightens, it could the Trump strategy could look very smart.
My personal guess is that the Great Lakes strategy will end up almost working, but at the expense of losses in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (i.e. states with meaningful Hispanic populations). A narrow Clinton victory, but with a somewhat surprising set of results.
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
That's a very interesting set of results. The Trump "Great Lakes" strategy would seem to be working in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisonsin and Michigan. But would seem to be falling short in Ohio.
But. It's failing in Florida (big time), and Virginia.
If the race tightens, it could the Trump strategy could look very smart.
My personal guess is that the Great Lakes strategy will end up almost working, but at the expense of losses in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (i.e. states with meaningful Hispanic populations). A narrow Clinton victory, but with a somewhat surprising set of results.
NB - the sampling appears to reflect population of USA - large in California for instance - but some of the samples are hardly any better than subsamples in large UK polling.
Also: Period is quite extended covering (I think) both Conferences and ending about a week ago - a week that has generally been good for Mr Trump I think.
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
That's a very interesting set of results. The Trump "Great Lakes" strategy would seem to be working in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisonsin and Michigan. But would seem to be falling short in Ohio.
But. It's failing in Florida (big time), and Virginia.
If the race tightens, it could the Trump strategy could look very smart.
My personal guess is that the Great Lakes strategy will end up almost working, but at the expense of losses in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (i.e. states with meaningful Hispanic populations). A narrow Clinton victory, but with a somewhat surprising set of results.
NB - the sampling appears to reflect population of USA - large in California for instance - but some of the samples are hardly any better than subsamples in large UK polling.
Also: Period is quite extended covering (I think) both Conferences and ending about a week ago - a week that has generally been good for Mr Trump I think.
So - take with a large pinch of NaCl.
Personal view: Trump has successfully energised a bunch of previously disenfrachised voters (like Leave did in the UK.) But he's also created a backlash: there is no reason for the Republicans to lose the Hispanic and black votes so badly this time around.
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
You missed Trump +5 in Maine and Clinton +4 in Missouri, both remarkable in themselves, although the sample sizes in these and in some of the others is a bit on the small side.
I think, as Michael Moore and others have said, this contest is tighter than the narrative of the last few weeks (since the DNC) would have one believe, a Trump voter is more likely to actually show up at the polling booth than a Hillary voter, and Trump is being dragged down (luckily for Hillary) more by his own party than by the electorate.
There is definitely a Brexit feel about this election, and although there is still the potential for a strong Democratic victory in the presidential and senate elections, it will require a lot of hard work over the next couple of months. Any lapses in concentration could be fatal.
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
That's a very interesting set of results. The Trump "Great Lakes" strategy would seem to be working in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisonsin and Michigan. But would seem to be falling short in Ohio.
But. It's failing in Florida (big time), and Virginia.
If the race tightens, it could the Trump strategy could look very smart.
My personal guess is that the Great Lakes strategy will end up almost working, but at the expense of losses in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (i.e. states with meaningful Hispanic populations). A narrow Clinton victory, but with a somewhat surprising set of results.
NB - the sampling appears to reflect population of USA - large in California for instance - but some of the samples are hardly any better than subsamples in large UK polling.
Also: Period is quite extended covering (I think) both Conferences and ending about a week ago - a week that has generally been good for Mr Trump I think.
So - take with a large pinch of NaCl.
Personal view: Trump has successfully energised a bunch of previously disenfrachised voters (like Leave did in the UK.) But he's also created a backlash: there is no reason for the Republicans to lose the Hispanic and black votes so badly this time around.
Clinton by 3-5% , I reckon.
If Trump rhetoric had avoided the racism and focused on the outsourced jobs, bad trade, Make America Great, (however flawed it is) he would be a lot more competitive, as those things definitely cut through in my of the states he needs to win.
Wow. Traingate has made it to Fortune magazine. That is amazing enough, but look at what the article has to say, or rather infer, about the BBC's political leanings:
"The inconsistency was gleefully jumped on by a U.K. press corps that is solidly anti-Corbyn. (The Tory press and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News are again him because he stands for everything they loathe; the BBC and The Guardian because his hard-left policies are badly hitting Labour’s poll ratings)."
Pennsylvania - Tie Iowa - Trump +1 Arizona - Trump +9 Colorado - Clinton + 3 Florida - Clinton +6 Georgia - Trump +5 Michigan - Tie Minnesota - Clinton +7 Nevada - Clinton +1 New Hampshire - Clinton +1 North Carolina - Clinton +1 Ohio - Clinton +6 Virgina - Clinton +5 Wisconsin - Clinton +1
‘Labour press officer Don Brind is currently working with Saving Labour.’
Hmm, so I was correct the other day when I pointed out Don’s latest offerings read more like a political broadcast for ‘Saving Labour’ . A minor point perhaps, but in future could we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than just some chap who ‘regularly contributes to the PB’ ?
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
No oil, no independence.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
And also a view that Iceland and Ireland offered models for Scotland to follow. Both of which crashed and burned in 2008 and the aftermath.
Ok turned on the news and Farage is giving a speech at a Trump conference.
Can someone tell me what I am seeing is real???
If Trump wins he could become a global mascot for the Anglosphere right. A kind of international Sarah Palin.
The Guardian reports (largely anecdotally it would seem) that most of the audience had heard neither of Farage or Brexit and were puzzled as to what was going on. Given the foreign awareness of many backstate Americans I suspect that may be right.
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
No oil, no independence.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
And also a view that Iceland and Ireland offered models for Scotland to follow. Both of which crashed and burned in 2008 and the aftermath.
I understand that Iceland and Ireland are doing well now.
‘Labour press officer Don Brind is currently working with Saving Labour.’
Hmm, so I was correct the other day when I pointed out Don’s latest offerings read more like a political broadcast for ‘Saving Labour’ . A minor point perhaps, but in future could we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than just some chap who ‘regularly contributes to the PB’ ?
Such a surprise from ex BBC person to see such impartiality. Must be part of the DNA.
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
No oil, no independence.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
And also a view that Iceland and Ireland offered models for Scotland to follow. Both of which crashed and burned in 2008 and the aftermath.
I understand that Iceland and Ireland are doing well now.
Yes they are both well on their way back, after going through a lot of turmoil.
My point was that during the Salmond years, the apparent boom in Ireland, and to a lesser extent the apparent financial independence of Iceland, offered models of success that contributed to the rise of the SNP's Indy campaign. Nowadays, not so much.
Ergo, the SNP - unless they are totally insane - have to row back from indy. How does Nicola do it, and keep her frothy tartan fanbois on board?
According to the papers she is going to legislate for a new Indyref...
If I were her, I'd do the same. Legislate, but not call. Hector, but don't move. Throw red meat to her activists, without ever actually doing anything.
Alternatively she might just go shit for bust and call a 2nd indyref, as she senses the window of final opportunity closing (and it is closing). But firstly she would need permish from Theresa, secondly, she would have to win.
I do not believe Scots would vote indy. And if the Nats lose again so soon they are destroyed as a party, and will split.
Tough call for Nicola. We will see if she is as good a politician as they say.
No oil, no independence.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
And also a view that Iceland and Ireland offered models for Scotland to follow. Both of which crashed and burned in 2008 and the aftermath.
I understand that Iceland and Ireland are doing well now.
Yes they are both well on their way back, after going through a lot of turmoil.
My point was that during the Salmond years, the apparent boom in Ireland, and to a lesser extent the apparent financial independence of Iceland, offered models of success that contributed to the rise of the SNP's Indy campaign. Nowadays, not so much.
Sandbrook lays into Jezza over traingate this morning. Mostly predictable, none the less hits the target well. The hardcore cultists are not going to switch, but maybe some of the undecided, longer standing Labour members and unions bods who are voting this week, will think twice about the alleged 'integrity' of a man who pulls stunts like this.
"These days, Labour have been reduced to squatting in a train corridor, even though there are seats available further down the carriage. There is surely a metaphor in there somewhere."
‘Labour press officer Don Brind is currently working with Saving Labour.’
Hmm, so I was correct the other day when I pointed out Don’s latest offerings read more like a political broadcast for ‘Saving Labour’ . A minor point perhaps, but in future could we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than just some chap who ‘regularly contributes to the PB’ ?
Comments
It starts on what I find to be a slightly flawed and overly optimistic premise, common in politics, that too many of his supporters don't know these things('What I discovered was that [Thoughtful, moderately Left-Wing Corbyn supporters] knew almost no facts about him or his fellow travellers) and, implicitly, can therefore be woken up if only they realise.
The problems being:
a) All those criticisms have been widely circulated, some well before he became leader. If those 'thoughtful moderate' types really are not aware of them by now, with non-Corbynites and Tories blaring them out constantly for over a year, then they have avoided those point by choice, steering away from them, since as Corbyn supporters they are explicitly more politically inclined than most people, and the target for that information, and yet still missed it.
b) Even if they become aware of those facts, there's no guarantee it would bother them. Yes, some would, we've seen the previously loyal turn coup plotter over some of them, but witness how many, upon discovering he has done something from that list, then defend it vociferously or use distraction tactics. It's tribalism at work, and no end of people defend near every one of those negative points.
It'd be nice to think if only people are told fact x they will realise they are on the wrong path, they'll realise socialism/Thatcherism/whateverism is the one true way if only they understood, but I think it would take a lot more practical impact before it happened.
That explains the constant spamming of pro-Smith articles on PB.
But TSE has promised a pro-Corbyn thread. Like many pro-Corbyn initiatives, he somewhat distracted from it himself.
Like Seumus Milne in a league of 3 journalists, sorted by quality.
As Mike will tell you, Don was responsible for Mike winning lots of money on Harriet Harman becoming Deputy Leader in 2007 when everyone else was saying Alan Johnson was nailed on.
Don was working on the campaign, and he knew his stuff.
"Don Brind who regularly contributes to the PB site and is currently working with Saving Labour on Owen Smith’s leadership campaign."
If Owen Smith hasn't admitted defeat in public yet, why should Don Brind who works for him do so publicly ?
Naughty.
I worry sometimes.
Reality does not intrude on their private dreams
"The Stronger In campaign has finally thrown in the towel, all those corporate millions, Roland Rudd’s spin, Cameron and Osborne’s careers and all they have to show for it is a Commander of the British Empire for Will Straw. Will says the “Stronger In” organisation is no longer.
Which is amateurism until the end. The database built up at great expense cannot therefore legally be used by another organisation."
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/768493259618390018
I'll recite a thousand PB Tories as a penance.
Maybe the Scots will follow your lead and vote for Independence, economics be damned
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/768458503694454784
So it's very unlikely, I can't see the registered supporters breaking 2-1 for Smith under any circumstance.
Scotland's £14.8bn budget hole (Sturgeon says she is looking into it)
Or soemthing.
I though he was just an idiot making a fool of himself by spamming "Smith has a chance" on PB all the time, while in fact that was his job.
No one should be ashamed of his job, but certainly he should say beforehand that he is biased due to his present employment.
The Lords apparently rule that reading of speeches is 'alien to the customs of the House and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates'. If you do need to have some notes, they are not supposed to follow them too closely.
May being blamed for Brexit on the podcast. I imagine if things go poorly that might become more pronounced a view.
The SNP's success was founded on North Sea Oil, now that oil revenues have plunged 97% the party is over.
I know you base a lot on the debates for Trump, but there is an issue beyond the known ones.
The moderators.
The Commission on Presidential Debates has delayed it's decision to appoint moderators because it has trouble finding a journalist that hasn't got ties to the nominees or had a public spat with ( finding one that Trump hasn't got into a fight with is impossible).
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/media/debate-moderators/index.html
It's a bipartisan commission so both sides have to agree.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-exclusive-idUSKCN10Z2MO?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
The pollster who has Hillary leading by 12 points nationally has her tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
"The candidates are running about even in eight states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, and the polling sample is too small to determine the winner in Alaska, Wyoming and Washington D.C. "
Worst thing about it is that it's not even a proper poll:
"The project, which combines opinion polls with an analysis of voting patterns under different election scenarios"
Goodnight.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/tony-blairs-clinton-blues-227342
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/#plus
Swing States
Pennsylvania - Tie
Iowa - Trump +1
Arizona - Trump +9
Colorado - Clinton + 3
Florida - Clinton +6
Georgia - Trump +5
Michigan - Tie
Minnesota - Clinton +7
Nevada - Clinton +1
New Hampshire - Clinton +1
North Carolina - Clinton +1
Ohio - Clinton +6
Virgina - Clinton +5
Wisconsin - Clinton +1
But. It's failing in Florida (big time), and Virginia.
If the race tightens, it could the Trump strategy could look very smart.
My personal guess is that the Great Lakes strategy will end up almost working, but at the expense of losses in New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (i.e. states with meaningful Hispanic populations). A narrow Clinton victory, but with a somewhat surprising set of results.
Also: Period is quite extended covering (I think) both Conferences and ending about a week ago - a week that has generally been good for Mr Trump I think.
So - take with a large pinch of NaCl.
Clinton by 3-5% , I reckon.
I think, as Michael Moore and others have said, this contest is tighter than the narrative of the last few weeks (since the DNC) would have one believe, a Trump voter is more likely to actually show up at the polling booth than a Hillary voter, and Trump is being dragged down (luckily for Hillary) more by his own party than by the electorate.
There is definitely a Brexit feel about this election, and although there is still the potential for a strong Democratic victory in the presidential and senate elections, it will require a lot of hard work over the next couple of months. Any lapses in concentration could be fatal.
Can someone tell me what I am seeing is real???
"The inconsistency was gleefully jumped on by a U.K. press corps that is solidly anti-Corbyn. (The Tory press and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News are again him because he stands for everything they loathe; the BBC and The Guardian because his hard-left policies are badly hitting Labour’s poll ratings)."
http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/richard-branson-jeremy-corbyn-train/
‘Labour press officer Don Brind is currently working with Saving Labour.’
Hmm, so I was correct the other day when I pointed out Don’s latest offerings read more like a political broadcast for ‘Saving Labour’ . A minor point perhaps, but in future could we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than just some chap who ‘regularly contributes to the PB’ ?
My notes of caution revolve around the minute sample size in some states but mostly the demographic turnout model :
White - 70 .. Black 58 .. Asian 45 .. Hispanic 30
My point was that during the Salmond years, the apparent boom in Ireland, and to a lesser extent the apparent financial independence of Iceland, offered models of success that contributed to the rise of the SNP's Indy campaign. Nowadays, not so much.
Ah SeanT
Sandbrook lays into Jezza over traingate this morning. Mostly predictable, none the less hits the target well. The hardcore cultists are not going to switch, but maybe some of the undecided, longer standing Labour members and unions bods who are voting this week, will think twice about the alleged 'integrity' of a man who pulls stunts like this.
"These days, Labour have been reduced to squatting in a train corridor, even though there are seats available further down the carriage. There is surely a metaphor in there somewhere."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3757395/Corbyn-s-Virgin-train-stunt-shows-s-stuck-1970s.html#ixzz4IK2mRYmy
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD