Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No hard data, of course, on Stoke Central but two excellent pi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No hard data, of course, on Stoke Central but two excellent pieces of journalism
There’ve been two excellent pieces of journalism today on the Stoke Central by-election which both provide some insights and in broad terms are in the same area. The FT’s Sebastian Payne has the video report above and the excellent Stephen Bush in the New Statesman has stuck his neck out and is suggesting that LAB’s organisational strength will see it home.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Labour will win in Stoke.
Darned it, I've gone and cursed them.
Snell post referendum "patriotism is a competition won by seeing who is the most inward looking”
Prediction: Labour loss.
Stoke seems to be assuming a greater importance than Copeland. I have the sense that the Conservatives are concentrating on Copeland while the LDs work Stoke harder.
Is it possible Labour could lose both seats ? Maybe. Could they lose one ? Maybe. Could they hold both ? Maybe.
Will I go through the card at Fontwell tomorrow ? Probably not.
Even if they have some data they need the expertise to utilise it. Also having a scouser as candidate is a negative.
However, Master Farron will have to up his game if this video is anything to go by. Haul him in for media training.
https://twitter.com/lesbonner/status/831205117005283328
I seem to remember you didn't fancy Carswell or Reckless either!
On the other hand ukip chose an outsider when many people were already unhappy about Hunt being an outsider. So..........
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/255778004/jeremy-corbyn-valentine-pants-underwear
The vast majority of by-elections are holds for the current party. Since 2010 there have only been five by-elections (I think) where the party has changed, and two of those were the Con-UKIP defectors. Corby, Bradford West and Richmond Park are very much a special exception.
That's three out of ?30-odd? by-elections where the constituency party changed. You have to ask whether the circumstances now are special enough to buck the trend. I can't see that it is, in Stoke at least.
(Might be wrong on exact numbers).
Also... I know how much many on this site enjoy comparisons to the Romans so perhaps they will enjoy this from Paul Krugman:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html?WT.mc_id=2016-KWP-MOBILE-INTL_AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&kwp_0=301453&kwp_4=1162608&kwp_1=530200&_r=0&referer=
It's the only way to explain the behaviour and selection of Snell, as well as some of their key campaigners.
Why would man b) be interested in nicking my bike?
Mason is a very ill paranoid schizophrenic. He genuinely needs help. Seriously.
https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/831179863214141443
Fake News is part and parcel of this.
Privacy is also a significant issue. It's one of the reasons I don't have a store card and like cash.
(Though for various reasons I'm sceptical about Cambridge Analytica's precise claims.)
Labour 28
Lib Dem 16
UKIP 1
Conservative 1
Very, very few votes are won on the doorstep. If they are, it's almost always by the candidate himself or herself.
It's elementary politics - criticise your opponent's policies by all means, criticise your opponent's personal qualifications and political record by all means but you must never be critical of those intending to vote for your opponent.
It's a democracy - it's not a question of right or wrong. People have a right to make up their own minds and have their own opinions. That doesn't mean you can't argue or challenge the opinions and try to convince them to your way of thinking - that's the political process.
Ultimately, it's a person's right to disagree with you - that doesn't make them bad or wrong or evil or stupid - it's simply they don't see the issues as you do and have reached different conclusions to you. There may be all manner of reasons for that - that's irrelevant.
Stephen Bush is more to the mark but again this ignores the Lib Dems who at the moment seem to be coming, coming. They too have a very good ground organization.
Overall Labour are favourite will UKIP even come second?
Yet...
Mike did you read yesterdays Guardian report, why not show that on this site?
As well as being disorganized another factor in their poor election record is that they polarize opposition against them. Not clear that will happen in Stoke as the opposition looks very fractured.
I never cease to be amazed by the levels of hypocrisy Republicans reach...
In a strange way I don't blame Trump... This is who he is.
But how can republican politicians look themselves in the mirror after this....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/jeremy-corbyn-labour-remain-election?client=safari
Toriesbike thieves now....I'd lay Davidson, Black, Robison, Robertson, Mackay, Matheson at those odds if the market was up on Betfair.
33s for Dugdale may well be a fair price (And around 20s for Davidson maybe), and Salmond is the one SNP westminster MP who could head back to be FM, though 20-1 is probably too short.
1) Another Indyref
and
2) Scotland votes for/becomes an Independent country.
Both of those are game changers.
I mean Scottish politics didn't change much after the first indyref?
For what its worth I think the absence of a remain GOTV operation was a major factor in the referendum result. There was no voter data from Stronger In, and the Labour In data was almost totally unreliable - guesswork from some algorhythm on a computer system at head office. On election day we were knocking on random doors with an even split of preferences between leave and remain, the effect of the work being in some cases simply reminding people to vote leave. The absence of co-ordination between the two campaigns meant almost no information was being shared. As a result there were 'labour in' people knocking on totally random doors and Stronger in people handing out crap patronising propoganda in the town centre. I'm pretty sure it had almost no effect on the referendum result and was almost as bad as the leave campaign, who also had no data and did nothing except for stand around lecturing people in the town centre and of course, turn up to grandstand at the count.
Had there been an effective, joined up stronger in campaign locally and nationally then remain could have got the won the referendum. It was basically the labour leaderships reluctance to agree to any co-ordination between the campaigns that lost it.
That said if you held a gun to my head I'd say the 12-1 on Yousaf is fair enough.
What would be your motivation? Nothing particularly palatable. And that isn't accusing all Leavers/Kippers of racism before anybody starts squeaking, just pointing out that we're leaving the EU now, sovereignty is regained, the battle is won. Anything further immigration wise starts to really look BNP lite and those aren't people I'd like on my side in the ballot booth.
Not sure if there are many loyalist left.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79840/jeremy-corbyn-supporter-paul-mason-says-labour
When the SNP put it in their manifesto to hold another Indyref.
This is getting a bit scary now....
Dumber than a box of rocks.
Renewed pressure on Speaker John Bercow as pro-Remain speech emerges
Trump has world leaders sucking up to him especially the western one's and that includes Trudeau,at least our PM made him say he was 100% behind NATO.
As for economic policies within NAFTA, there would be no social charter US-style, no tax harmonisation, no worries about being asked to bail-out insolvent partner countries with unaffordable state pensions. True, the EU offers free movement of people and the single market; but there is little migration in Europe and the single market has proved a recipe for excessive regulation. In any case joining NAFTA would not stop us doing what we want with the EU.
http://www.euro-know.org/europages/telegraph/dt990719.html
Far from the present day bogeyman, freedom of movement was seen as something we ought to have more of, and the relative lack of it in practice was seen as a reason to criticise the EU. It's easy to see why Blair made the decision not to impose controls after the 2004 expansion. If the Eurosceptics were intellectually honest, they would say that the fact that so many people chose to move to the UK is evidence that the EU 'works'.
We may be watching the end of American democracy.
Scotland voted to remain part of Britain, and Britain (inc Scotland) voted for Brexit.
Sturgeon has no justification whatsoever for her demand.
Ignore.
would probably do it
https://www.fginsight.com/news/eu-farming-unions-push-for-free-trade-with-the-uk-post-brexit-18713
The best thing TM can do to save the union is make a success of Brexit.
IF he wins.
For years the anti Europeans have been screaming that the EU is about politics, not economics, yet they somehow believe that leaving will have no affect on our politics but offer us economic benefits. Their own incoherence blinds them to what is going to unfold.
Sturgeon will be hard to handle.
all they had to do was stick £350 million on the side of a bus