politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The dark cloud on Labour’s horizon: total wipeout

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The dark cloud on Labour’s horizon: total wipeout

One of the best political tips of the 2015 general election was to back Labour for 0-5 seats in Scotland. When William Hill first put the market up – after the independence referendum – they marked that outcome at no less than 125/1. (I apologise for not being able to namecheck the PBer who tipped the bet; I forget who it was.)

Read the full story here

williamglenn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brp8Va8XVQw

Pong

"When William Hill first put the market up – after the independence referendum – they marked that outcome at no less than 125/1. (I apologise for not being able to namecheck the PBer who tipped the bet; I forget who it was.)"

I believe it was Calum Ferguson;

http://wingsoverscotland.com/making-lemonade/

Thanks @calum

RobD

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

RobD

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

CarlottaVance

RobD said:

We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

Anyone seen Mark Senior?

Callum was one of the thoughtful Nat posters - I hope he's faring ok - there have been no updates on his justgiving page for 5 months.

On 'spotting trends' I did remark at the time that the SNP were consistently doing well in the YouGov Scottish subsample, but was sent to the subsample naughty step for my pains.....

SouthamObserver

A good article - and a fair one. UKIP's inability to change in order to seize the chance Corbyn pptesents means that Labour will be the official opposition after the next general election. Whether it will be following the one after that depends entirely on the party's membership.

If the LibDems are the beneficiaries of a continuing far left domination of the Labour party, the chances are the LibDems will change. There will be a lot of moderate Labour supporters like me looking for a home and that is bound to make a difference to the party's make-up and policies.

AlastairMeeks

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.

RobD

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.

About 400 constituencies voted Leave. Good news for May!

AlastairMeeks

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.

About 400 constituencies voted Leave. Good news for May!

I'm coming back to this point in a thread header soon. It's more complicated than this.

Obviously the Conservatives are doing very well and Labour are doing very badly, mind.

View_From_Cumbria

A fair and good analysis David. As one who challenged your assumption last Monday that the countryside was like the main towns I think you make a very generous point in the p.s.

Has Mark Senior offered his congratulations to the two winning candidates yet ?

Here I am consciously trying to say something different rather than reiterating the points commonly made. A key point in these circumstances is the quaility of information. I said last Monday I expected a Con victory BUT it was not until Wed night when a key LD who had been visiting the constituency confirmed they had a Con victory nailed on that I was absolutely convinced. It is a fact that their knowledge - which Mark Senior uses all the time - is better than that generally held within the Con party.

However, Trudy Harrison would not have won were it not for the quality and quantity of information held by a certain key hard working Con activist from within Copeland constituency who posted on here yesterday in the early hours. There is no doubt in my mind that this local Con Association is much better run from a data point of view than any others which have faced by-elections in this parliament - including Witney.

John_M

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.

About 400 constituencies voted Leave. Good news for May!

I'm coming back to this point in a thread header soon. It's more complicated than this.

Obviously the Conservatives are doing very well and Labour are doing very badly, mind.

Good morning all. I'm not sure that Brexit has as much salience as we anoraks believe. It doesn't really engage ordinary peoples' passions. This is, of course, pure anecdota based on talking to my extended family.

We had a vote, the government is getting on with it, and now the conversation is about the NHS and social care - that's if we talk about politics at all. I would add that the Labour voters in my tribe do like Mrs May. Which is a genuine surprise. I thought they'd see Thatcher II.

CarlottaVance

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

David Herdson overstates this. We can say this with more confidence in strongly Leave-voting seats. The evidence from seats that voted Remain so far points the other way.

About 400 constituencies voted Leave. Good news for May!

I'm coming back to this point in a thread header soon. It's more complicated than this.

Obviously the Conservatives are doing very well and Labour are doing very badly, mind.

I would add that the Labour voters in my tribe do like Mrs May. Which is a genuine surprise. I thought they'd see Thatcher II.

Backed by polling:

Who would make best PM
Voted Labour 2015
May: 28
Corbyn: 32
DK: 40

Of course when you ask who would vote Labour now the result is rather different:
May: 9
Corbyn: 56
DK: 34

For perspective among current Con voters May's 'Best PM' score is 93.......

MJW

This is right I think - the one real saving grace for Labour is that at the moment there's no party truly capable of supplanting it as a political force, as the SNP did in Scotland. UKIP appear to have a ceiling as they're too disliked outside their natural vehemently anti-immigration constituency and Theresa May promising to complete their raison d'etre without unpleasant eccentricity. The Lib Dems could in theory with their continuity remain stance but would need to change as a party to be more like Labour 1930-2015 to tempt centre left voters MPs and activists who've long seen them as a wishy washy cop out, as well as gaining defections to give a parliamentary and media base.

This won't last forever though - the vast number of centre-left and centre voters now effectively have no national political voice. Someone will fill the vacuum - a Macron win will certainly get people thinking. The question is, are Labour members so determined to take the party down the revolutionary socialist route they'll vote Corbyn in the knowledge it's suicide. If so then the kinder thing maybe for MPs and moderate members to split and create a new party. The polls that may matter most at the moment are of the Labour selectorate.

On a side note, it's also pretty important for moderates that Labour's NEC allow a similar £3 scheme. In 2015, it was a disaster, but Corbynistas have now joined and moderates left the party. As we saw with Smith, pre-2015 members are much more anti-Corbyn and from the sound of any number of interviews in Copeland a lot of ex-Labour voters are motivated enough to consider signing up to kick Corbyn out, as some tried by proxy. The hard left may have also reached its organisational peak - the commentators who provide their acceptable face and broaden their appeal to the idealistic but naive are trying to slink away from Corbyn without anyone noticing. Momentum is divided, and their pro-Corbyn drives were so successful last time they may have reached saturation point.

The problem for moderate MPs is that taking on Corbyn again really is kill or cure. If he wins again it's over. They'd either have to be certain to win, or certain the alternative was death anyway.

notme

View_From_Cumbria said:

A fair and good analysis David. As one who challenged your assumption last Monday that the countryside was like the main towns I think you make a very generous point in the p.s.

Has Mark Senior offered his congratulations to the two winning candidates yet ?

Here I am consciously trying to say something different rather than reiterating the points commonly made. A key point in these circumstances is the quaility of information. I said last Monday I expected a Con victory BUT it was not until Wed night when a key LD who had been visiting the constituency confirmed they had a Con victory nailed on that I was absolutely convinced. It is a fact that their knowledge - which Mark Senior uses all the time - is better than that generally held within the Con party.

However, Trudy Harrison would not have won were it not for the quality and quantity of information held by a certain key hard working Con activist from within Copeland constituency who posted on here yesterday in the early hours. There is no doubt in my mind that this local Con Association is much better run from a data point of view than any others which have faced by-elections in this parliament - including Witney.

They went from less than two thousand pledges to more than ten thousand in the space of weeks. County council elections are going to be grim for labour in the county.

peter_from_putney

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

tlg86

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

Blue_rog

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

foxinsoxuk

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

If only I could recall who the tipster who was who tipped Obama at 50/1. It never gets mentioned...

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brp8Va8XVQw

Joan offers some advice to Labour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifARMmcqhD8

AlastairMeeks

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

JackW

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

I take the view that essentially the local and constituency by-elections are perfectly in accord for the LibDems :

Where they are in contention they are a serious option for the win and where not they are enjoying a modest bounce in their vote share. Richmond and many local by-elections for the former and Stoke and Copeland for the latter. Indeed it would be normal for a poorly placed party to be squeezed in by-elections but the yellow peril showed significant resilience in Thursday's polls.

More of an acid test will be the May elections where the LibDems will be spread thinner across the board and unable to throw large resources at individual contests.

tlg86

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

Sounds like Sir Alex Ferguson!

ThomasNashe

Interesting interview with Gerard Coyne (challenger to Len McCluskey) on R4 just now. Don't know enough about Unite to know whether he has any chance of winning, but it's pretty clear that the Union's backing for Corbyn would go overnight if he does.

tlg86

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nothing wrong with that. I was a bit unfair on Mike's 50-1 on the Lib Dems in Stoke. But actually I thought it was an okay bet at the time. I was genuinely surprised at just how badly they did in Stoke.

MarqueeMark

Listening to the vox-pop from Copeland, it was interesting to hear the straight Labour to Conservative switchers, many of whom professed to have been "Labour all my life..." There's a strong strand of Labour support that would never countenance voting Tory. When these folk desert Labour and vote for the Tories, the glue holding Labour together really has come unstuck.

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well. Whilst not exactly being "one of us", she doesn't rub folk up the wrong way just for breathing. As I've said before, her "detoffifying" the Tory brand could be a huge factor in breaking down resistance by those who wish her well on Brexit but would never have previously considered voting Tory.

The other parties just have to pray that she can't deliver a half decent Brexit settlement. I fear they may be disappointed though.

foxinsoxuk

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nobody bats 1000 on tips!

There are lots of potential Labour voters out there, and May's honeymoon will not last forever. Masterly inactivity can only last so long, and once A50 is invoked becomes impossible.

Labour voters need to be given something positive to vote for, not just anti-this or stop-that etc. Jezza is incompetent at both conceiving or communicating that sort of vision.

I also think it was poor tactically to call these byelections too precipitately in midwinter. Tory voters are more likely to turnout on cold winter days, and more likely to vote by post. It also didn't allow for a lot of thought about candidate selection, particularly in Stoke (Copeland had more notice). A May byelection post A50 and in good weather may have had a different outcome.

The PLP and the Labour selectorate only have themselves to blame. They permitted Brown a coronation, and elected Ed Miliband then Corbyn. On each occasion there were better alternatives.

JackW

Too late to the party for most PBers but Mrs JackW is enjoying the benefit of an 18 year old viking ....

I've been backing Christian Ruud, a Norwegian tennis player, who is a wild card in the ATP 500 Rio tournament. His half of the draw opened up when top seed Kei Nishikori lost in the first round. Overnight he reached the semi-final.

Shoe-tastic ....

Alanbrooke

If the LDs had any gumption theyd go for killing Labour off and taking back their position as the offical opposition

but theyve got Farron

Roger

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his intervention "Labour are in the worst position they've been in for 52 years" mean something else?)

Alanbrooke

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

ThreeQuidder

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

MarqueeMark

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

Yeah - "My brother was shit,wasn't he? Look what he left for me to inherit...."

SquareRoot

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

Bananaman.. who made such a mess of a diplomatic visit that Mandy had to rescue him..

its on a par with Brown chasing Obama thro the kitchens of the white house

peter_from_putney

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

If only I could recall who the tipster who was who tipped Obama at 50/1. It never gets mentioned...

Yep, OGH is great when it comes to the long term long shots, not quite the ticket as regards Copeland this week though it has to be said.

One of my enduring memories as regards staggeringly successful PB.com forecasting was the manner in which antifrank (as he then was) tipped Scottish seats literally by the dozen around 18 months before the 2015 GE which he correctly forecast were susceptible to capture by the SNP, supported by spreadsheets, etc, at a time when in many cases the widely available odds were 20/1, 25/1, 33/1 or even more. In retrospect it's a minor miracle that the likes of the usually very canny Shadsy were't simply blown away.

foxinsoxuk

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nothing wrong with that. I was a bit unfair on Mike's 50-1 on the Lib Dems in Stoke. But actually I thought it was an okay bet at the time. I was genuinely surprised at just how badly they did in Stoke.

Anti-UKIP tactical voting. I would have done the same there.

Which means of course that the true Lab position in Stoke is worse than it appears.

View_From_Cumbria

The obsession with pledges is one of the problems with the Conservative data handling. You can't go from 2000 to 10000 pledges in an by-election campaign if you don't have any idea where your POTENTIAL pledges are.

If you have a safe southern seat - like Whitney where a 10k majority is nailed on you really don't have to be up there with the pledge base. You are still going to win the seat in normal times and you have 2/3 of the council seats.

In Copeland and the other Cumbria districts every vote counts. The base data has to be there.

In reverse the same is true for Labour. In ultra safe seats no-one is counting the votes street by street, let alone house by house.

Don't get me wrong - Trudy Harrison was one hell of a candidate and congratulations. Also the help from the NW Con Election Team was out of this world good. But, there was an underlying knowledge about the area within the albeit very small local Con Association which will not be there in most constituencies.

Alanbrooke

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

Bananaman.. who made such a mess of a diplomatic visit that Mandy had to rescue him..

its on a par with Brown chasing Obama thro the kitchens of the white house

Bananaman who charged off to NY to suck up to Hilary and now faces Trump

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I agree with the article. Labour MPs do seem entirely frit of leaving the party. I do wonder how long Corbyn will be there.

If there were an SNP-type party (UKIP's fading and the Lib Dems' eurosausage politics will only go so far) in England then Labour would be staring down the barrel of a space cannon.

Charles

Pong said:

"When William Hill first put the market up – after the independence referendum – they marked that outcome at no less than 125/1. (I apologise for not being able to namecheck the PBer who tipped the bet; I forget who it was.)"

I believe it was Calum Ferguson;

http://wingsoverscotland.com/making-lemonade/

Thanks @calum

Hope he's ok - we haven't seen him for a while & I recall he had MND or something fairly nasty.

foxinsoxuk

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

Casino_Royale

"..had Lloyd George and Asquith not behaved like a pair of squabbling children"

I love the inherent frustration here at the behaviour of the Liberal party over a hundred years ago ;-)

HYUFD

@

RobD said:

One factor that makes Copeland (and Stoke) particularly significant is that they validate the opinion polls. These have been returning figures out of line with local by-elections, where the Tories have been doing a good deal worse and the Lib Dems a good deal better. We can now say with a little more confidence that for Westminster, the polling seems the more reliable.

So much for the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election results

Parliamentary by elections are better predictors than local council by elections, for example Blair held every Labour seat in parliamentary by elections from 1997 to 2001 even as ge lost numerous council by elections

Mortimer

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nothing wrong with that. I was a bit unfair on Mike's 50-1 on the Lib Dems in Stoke. But actually I thought it was an okay bet at the time. I was genuinely surprised at just how badly they did in Stoke.

Anti-UKIP tactical voting. I would have done the same there.

Which means of course that the true Lab position in Stoke is worse than it appears.

Keep spinning Fox - anything but the Tories actually being strong and popular and the Libs still not trusted at a parliamentary level, eh?

Becoming a bit MarkSeniorish, to be honest....

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Any reasonably active regular tipster would find themselves in both, of course.

JosiasJessop

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

Worryingly, this is straight from the New Dictator's Handbook (tm).

Note: I am certainly not saying that Trump is a dictator. Nor am I saying he *will* be a dictator; it's just that control of the media is vital for dictators.

To my mind, it is a negative sign, albeit a minor one. One of the things that will have to be watched for is any further attacks on the judiciary.

Roger

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

It's not like Labour can send Tom Cruise to Hartepool to see if he can pull.

JackW

Mortimer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nothing wrong with that. I was a bit unfair on Mike's 50-1 on the Lib Dems in Stoke. But actually I thought it was an okay bet at the time. I was genuinely surprised at just how badly they did in Stoke.

Anti-UKIP tactical voting. I would have done the same there.

Which means of course that the true Lab position in Stoke is worse than it appears.

Keep spinning Fox - anything but the Tories actually being strong and popular and the Libs still not trusted at a parliamentary level, eh?

Becoming a bit MarkSeniorish, to be honest....

And are you being a wee bit "Mortimerish" ....

Casino_Royale

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

2016 was a fantastic year for me for political betting: Cameron and Osborne going, Leave winning, May winning, EU ref being held, Corbyn re-elected.. I was on them all.

Those bets paid for a lovely 2 week holiday to Thailand for me and my wife.

JackW

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

It's not like Labour can send Tom Cruise to Hartepool to see if he can pull.

Does Peter Mandelson prefer to be top gun .... ?

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

Roger

JackW said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

It's not like Labour can send Tom Cruise to Hartepool to see if he can pull.

Does Peter Mandelson prefer to be top gun .... ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPtXW7L0dfQ

ThomasNashe

foxinsoxuk said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.

MonikerDiCanio

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his intervention "Labour are in the worst position they've been in for 52 years" mean something else?)

The Labour cupboard is bare if you think a multimillionaire North London / Manhattan Blairite is the answer to the workingman's party's woes. Quite bare.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Charles, that's right. I wish I'd followed Mr. Calum's tips, would've hundreds even with tiny bets, and thousands with moderate ones. Hope he's alright, I think you're right about him having MND.

OldKingCole

JackW said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

It's not like Labour can send Tom Cruise to Hartepool to see if he can pull.

Does Peter Mandelson prefer to be top gun .... ?

I met a lovely girl from Hartlepool when I was young, long, long ago. Didn’t work out but I still sometimes wonder.

Her dad was a bookie, too.........

foxinsoxuk

Mortimer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

I'd also make the hall of shame for some of the worst tips ever given.

Nothing wrong with that. I was a bit unfair on Mike's 50-1 on the Lib Dems in Stoke. But actually I thought it was an okay bet at the time. I was genuinely surprised at just how badly they did in Stoke.

Anti-UKIP tactical voting. I would have done the same there.

Which means of course that the true Lab position in Stoke is worse than it appears.

Keep spinning Fox - anything but the Tories actually being strong and popular and the Libs still not trusted at a parliamentary level, eh?

Becoming a bit MarkSeniorish, to be honest....

If it were Tories in second place and no significant UKIP vote then the LDs would do better. Indeed I that true in a number of constituencies. When UKIP disbands* I suspect that the Tories will gain some urban constituencies, in part by direct switching to the blues. In part by tactical unwind.

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

MarqueeMark

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

Who can forget Theresa the Appeaser trending on Twitter....

JosiasJessop

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.

And often the claims that 'Obama did it too' turn out to be false.

notme

View_From_Cumbria said:

The obsession with pledges is one of the problems with the Conservative data handling. You can't go from 2000 to 10000 pledges in an by-election campaign if you don't have any idea where your POTENTIAL pledges are.

If you have a safe southern seat - like Whitney where a 10k majority is nailed on you really don't have to be up there with the pledge base. You are still going to win the seat in normal times and you have 2/3 of the council seats.

In Copeland and the other Cumbria districts every vote counts. The base data has to be there.

In reverse the same is true for Labour. In ultra safe seats no-one is counting the votes street by street, let alone house by house.

Don't get me wrong - Trudy Harrison was one hell of a candidate and congratulations. Also the help from the NW Con Election Team was out of this world good. But, there was an underlying knowledge about the area within the albeit very small local Con Association which will not be there in most constituencies.

Complete and utter nonsense. There was close to no activity in the association. A few well meaning and capable people, yes, but an active campaigning team? Not a bit of it. The idea that they had some kind of insight other than a marked register and a few hunches is utter nonsense. It was the big boys from outside the constituency who rolled up with man power who went and identified the pledge base. That of course will now change.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

She will be. All political careers end in failure, the only question is when.

Becoming a toxic vote loser is inevitable.

ThomasNashe

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

Who can forget Theresa the Appeaser trending on Twitter....

Saw plenty of 'Theresa the Appeaser' placards in Westminster the other evening, accompanied by Momentum banners. There were literally hundreds of them. It's clear that Corbyn's message is getting through.

peter_from_putney

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

2016 was a fantastic year for me for political betting: Cameron and Osborne going, Leave winning, May winning, EU ref being held, Corbyn re-elected.. I was on them all.

Those bets paid for a lovely 2 week holiday to Thailand for me and my wife.

Casino - it always seems to be the way that successful betting exploits are celebrated in terms of spending one's ill-gotten gains on luxuries, in your case on a holiday with Mrs Casino in Thailand. With me, it's on buying a case of good wine or spending a small fortune going to the West End theatre followed by dinner, etc. We never seem to equate winning with having that old creaking boiler fixed or whatever.

ThomasNashe

JosiasJessop said:

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.

And often the claims that 'Obama did it too' turn out to be false.

I'd query your 'often'.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

She will be. All political careers end in failure, the only question is when.

Becoming a toxic vote loser is inevitable.

Fair enough, but the claim was she is a vote loser now.

Roger

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

At her best she has something of the Angela Merkel about her. If she coud curb the temptation to ape Maggie (thankfully not too often these days) by not trying to appear resolute instead of keeping her natural humility she could stay popular even without Corbyn's help

AlastairMeeks

Calum has a new cause:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/Calum-Ferguson3

Jonathan

The position for Labour is simple.

Right now it's hard, but not mathematically impossible for them to regain power in one election.

But current polls suggest they will lose many seats next time, making recovery a two election process.

That means, as things stand now, Labour are not returning to power until 2030 at the earliest

Bearing that in mind, the public may well look elsewhere.

MarqueeMark

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

She will be. All political careers end in failure, the only question is when.

Becoming a toxic vote loser is inevitable.

Fair enough, but the claim was she is a vote loser now.

A claim by Mark Senior...the man who lost a gold sovereign betting there wouldn't be a recession in 2008!

Casino_Royale

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

peter_from_putney said:

RobD said:

@Pong, there should really be a PB Hall of Fame maintained somewhere for these kind of people!

I agree ..... the all time great bets and more importantly the PBers who spotted them need to be remembered and celebrated here.

And it's not just about really long odds, it's about the assumptions underlying the bets. Two come to mind: your 12-1 tip on Cameron to go in 2016 was essentially a 12-1 bet on Leave winning the referendum (and actually I reckon he might have been toast anyway had Remain won).

And Alastair Meeks' tip for NOM in Scotland last year. I think some nats argued against it thinking the polls were underestimating the SNP, but the key point was that the SNP majority in 2011 was the unusual event in that voting system.

2016 was a fantastic year for me for political betting: Cameron and Osborne going, Leave winning, May winning, EU ref being held, Corbyn re-elected.. I was on them all.

Those bets paid for a lovely 2 week holiday to Thailand for me and my wife.

Casino - it always seems to be the way that successful betting exploits are celebrated in terms of spending one's ill-gotten gains on luxuries, in your case on a holiday with Mrs Casino in Thailand. With me, it's on buying a case of good wine or spending a small fortune going to the West End theatre followed by dinner, etc. We never seem to equate winning with having that old creaking boiler fixed or whatever.

That was 2015. I had a decent bonus from my employer, but had to spend £3.5k + VAT on a new boiler and central heating system.

SquareRoot

ThomasNashe said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

Who can forget Theresa the Appeaser trending on Twitter....

Saw plenty of 'Theresa the Appeaser' placards in Westminster the other evening, accompanied by Momentum banners. There were literally hundreds of them. It's clear that Corbyn's message is getting through.

unspoofable

Malmesbury

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.

IIRC The Obama White House organised some briefings for "friendly press" - but didn't bar organisations from the main briefings.

not_on_fire

ThomasNashe said:

JosiasJessop said:

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T. I don't know if this has been discussed already but the reports on Sky and the BBC seem a little worrying. Some news agencies have been excluded from a press briefing at the White House. Is this correct? If so, is it as black and white as that? If it is as reported then it appears as if the Trump administration is trampling over the first amendment!

It's no different from what Obama sometimes did, but - for some reason I can't explain - it's getting a ton more publicity.

Did Obama ban the BBC? I would genuinely be interested as to why and in what circumstances.

Trump is a disaster. Corbyn in reverse, but in power too.

I've noticed this is a key rebuttal tactic: presented with evidence of Trump running roughshod over the Constitution, the response is Obama did the same, but it wasn't reported, so no one noticed.

And often the claims that 'Obama did it too' turn out to be false.

I'd query your 'often'.

Indeed, the correct word is 'always'

rural_voter

Jonathan said:

The position for Labour is simple.

Right now it's hard, but not mathematically impossible for them to regain power in one election.

But current polls suggest they will lose many seats next time, making recovery a two election process.

That means, as things stand now, Labour are not returning to power until 2030 at the earliest

Bearing that in mind, the public may well look elsewhere.

Here? http://londonsnp.com/

That though under FPTP produces a Tory one-party state. Only the House of Lords remains as an official opposition; it has NOC and lots of cross-benchers with no party whip.

notme

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

At her best she has something of the Angela Merkel about her. If she coud curb the temptation to ape Maggie (thankfully not too often these days) by not trying to appear resolute instead of keeping her natural humility she could stay popular even without Corbyn's help

"and ran a candidate who was a local doctor and ambulance driver" that certainly wouldn't survive even a cursory fact check... but an excellent piece by Rory.

Roger

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

Bananaman.. who made such a mess of a diplomatic visit that Mandy had to rescue him..

its on a par with Brown chasing Obama thro the kitchens of the white house

I've just had an idea for picking the next Labour leader. Throw the candidate up in the air on PB and the one that lands with the most bullet holes is the one to choose

Dixie

View_From_Cumbria said:

A fair and good analysis David. As one who challenged your assumption last Monday that the countryside was like the main towns I think you make a very generous point in the p.s.

Has Mark Senior offered his congratulations to the two winning candidates yet ?

Here I am consciously trying to say something different rather than reiterating the points commonly made. A key point in these circumstances is the quaility of information. I said last Monday I expected a Con victory BUT it was not until Wed night when a key LD who had been visiting the constituency confirmed they had a Con victory nailed on that I was absolutely convinced. It is a fact that their knowledge - which Mark Senior uses all the time - is better than that generally held within the Con party.

However, Trudy Harrison would not have won were it not for the quality and quantity of information held by a certain key hard working Con activist from within Copeland constituency who posted on here yesterday in the early hours. There is no doubt in my mind that this local Con Association is much better run from a data point of view than any others which have faced by-elections in this parliament - including Witney.

I agree. Whilst national opinion polls are crucial, a party can win by having a better ground game. Tories won Copeland, in part, because they were well organised and motivated. Labour were not, even though history was on their side. The key point for me is that the Tories were 'telling' and Labour were not.

old_labour

Sadiq Khan today ignites the independence debate by comparing Scottish nationalism to racism.

Writing in the Record, the Labour Mayor of London insists there is no real difference between voting for a separate Scotland and “trying to divide us on the basis of background, race or religion”.

Khan also compares Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP to politicians like Donald Trump who seek to fuel division.

JosiasJessop

Have PB's crime correspondents mentioned this story yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39081698

notme

Dixie said:

View_From_Cumbria said:

A fair and good analysis David. As one who challenged your assumption last Monday that the countryside was like the main towns I think you make a very generous point in the p.s.

Has Mark Senior offered his congratulations to the two winning candidates yet ?

Here I am consciously trying to say something different rather than reiterating the points commonly made. A key point in these circumstances is the quaility of information. I said last Monday I expected a Con victory BUT it was not until Wed night when a key LD who had been visiting the constituency confirmed they had a Con victory nailed on that I was absolutely convinced. It is a fact that their knowledge - which Mark Senior uses all the time - is better than that generally held within the Con party.

However, Trudy Harrison would not have won were it not for the quality and quantity of information held by a certain key hard working Con activist from within Copeland constituency who posted on here yesterday in the early hours. There is no doubt in my mind that this local Con Association is much better run from a data point of view than any others which have faced by-elections in this parliament - including Witney.

I agree. Whilst national opinion polls are crucial, a party can win by having a better ground game. Tories won Copeland, in part, because they were well organised and motivated. Labour were not, even though history was on their side. The key point for me is that the Tories were 'telling' and Labour were not.

Which meant their later ground game was running blind. It would be understandable if you wanted to concentrate manpower in the urban areas, I visited a polling station that covered four polling districts. Yes 4! Having a few less active activists sitting telling there would have saved huge amounts of time later on. But no tellers anywhere.

I always assumed Labour had legions of manpower willing to get out there and do stuff.

Jonathan

Roger said:

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

Bananaman.. who made such a mess of a diplomatic visit that Mandy had to rescue him..

its on a par with Brown chasing Obama thro the kitchens of the white house

I've just had an idea for picking the next Labour leader. Throw the candidate up in the air on PB and the one that lands with the most bullet holes is the one to choose

So Corbyn again?

JackW

old_labour said:

Sadiq Khan today ignites the independence debate by comparing Scottish nationalism to racism.

Writing in the Record, the Labour Mayor of London insists there is no real difference between voting for a separate Scotland and “trying to divide us on the basis of background, race or religion”.

Khan also compares Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP to politicians like Donald Trump who seek to fuel division.

The Wrath of Khan ....

He lost the argument too ....

notme

JosiasJessop said:

Have PB's crime correspondents mentioned this story yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39081698

"where some blamed Donald Trump's presidency." those very same people would blame brexit if it happened here.

Dixie

Great piece Me Herdson. Don't worry about getting result wrong, there are always so many variables. We knew Tories were working hard and organised. We didn't know that Labour would be de-motivated, dis-organised and deliver a crap leaflet at end. Good news, though.

One reason why Labour will survive is that they Union power. They are self serving so will survive, so, in turn, will the party. There are 6 million Union members I believe.

Of course, If Libs really get their act together then Labour will be in the doldrums. But Libs are moving Left too, and lager swillers and sandal wearing don't mix.

My view: Libs will pick up 50 seats in 2020, mainly from Labour.
Tories will pick up 25 key marginals.
Labour may gain share in big city 'Remain' seats like Islington.
Labour will be on at about 150 MPs then vote in a Centre leader, such as Starmer, and then it will be a 3-way fight between Libs/Tories/New Lab for the centre ground. However, Nationalism will now be the new centre (as it always should have been).

On the other hand, if Lab keep getting more pro-immigration, then they will lose the WWC, and then they are doomed. Snowflakes are not enough!

foxinsoxuk

notme said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

At her best she has something of the Angela Merkel about her. If she coud curb the temptation to ape Maggie (thankfully not too often these days) by not trying to appear resolute instead of keeping her natural humility she could stay popular even without Corbyn's help

"and ran a candidate who was a local doctor and ambulance driver" that certainly wouldn't survive even a cursory fact check... but an excellent piece by Rory.

@GillTroughton is a doctor, but ceased practising when she married and had children. She then worked for the ambulance service. It is all water under the bridge now, but why do you persist with your "alternative facts" about her?

CD13

Roger,

"I've just had an idea for picking the next Labour leader. Throw the candidate up in the air on PB and the one that lands with the most bullet holes is the one to choose/"

I've heard worse ideas,

Where do Labour go, though? The suggestions range from backwards (Miliband D) to various Jezzarite alternatives (bizarre) through to the newly elected (optimistic).

Labour will come back - the tribal pull is still strong - but in which decade?

PlatoSaid

I see PewDiePie has another rebuttal video. The WSJ isn't covering itself in glory

https://youtu.be/sTCDfE_sKnM

Roger

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

She will be. All political careers end in failure, the only question is when.

Becoming a toxic vote loser is inevitable.

Fair enough, but the claim was she is a vote loser now.

A claim by Mark Senior...the man who lost a gold sovereign betting there wouldn't be a recession in 2008!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgHlAdSpn7Y

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Labour, Khan is cretin.

I'm no supporter of Scottish nationalism but the idea it's akin to racism is indefensible bullshit.

ThomasNashe

SquareRoot said:

ThomasNashe said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

What a toxic vote loser.

Who can forget Theresa the Appeaser trending on Twitter....

Saw plenty of 'Theresa the Appeaser' placards in Westminster the other evening, accompanied by Momentum banners. There were literally hundreds of them. It's clear that Corbyn's message is getting through.

unspoofable

Good to see your irony detector is functioning so well.

JackW

Oz giving India a right drubbing in the 1st test - India 97-5 requiring another 344 to win. Oz spinner O'Keefe has taken ten wickets in the match so far.

JosiasJessop

PlatoSaid said:

I see PewDiePie has another rebuttal video. The WSJ isn't covering itself in glory

https://youtu.be/sTCDfE_sKnM

Well, at least you've moved on from Milo. Why's that, I wonder ... ?

notme

PlatoSaid said:

I see PewDiePie has another rebuttal video. The WSJ isn't covering itself in glory

https://youtu.be/sTCDfE_sKnM

Do you think is sheer reach allows him to nullify the accusations?

Pong

Dixie said:

However, Nationalism will now be the new centre (as it always should have been).

Which nationalism(s)?

ThomasNashe

Roger said:

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

A good article David but obviously written before David Milliband's barely coded message that he's willing able and more than up for it!

(Or did his description that Labour were in the worst position they've been in for 52 years mean something else?)

David Miliband, the bloke who couldnt stand up to Gordon

riiiight

Bananaman.. who made such a mess of a diplomatic visit that Mandy had to rescue him..

its on a par with Brown chasing Obama thro the kitchens of the white house

I've just had an idea for picking the next Labour leader. Throw the candidate up in the air on PB and the one that lands with the most bullet holes is the one to choose

Is it too late to bring the postie in as a short-term damage limitation exercise?

JackW

India 99-6 - O'Keefe again.

Tea.

notme

foxinsoxuk said:

notme said:

Roger said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

Those Theresa May popularity numbers keep being held in the stratosphere. Seeing her win seats like Copeland is only going to cement that with the party faithful. But I suspect that many of those for whom voting for "the Toffs" of Cameron and Osborne would have been unthinkable are now happy to see May getting on with the job and wish her well.

Rory Stewart:

I must have met a hundred people who said that they didn’t like the Tories, but liked the Prime Minister. They volunteered that she “had a very difficult job”, that they “wouldn’t like to be in her place”, that she was “working very hard”, and “doing well” (even if they added a Cumbrian “so far”). Increasingly, if I was stuck for something to say I just raised Theresa May. Somehow the Brexit vote, and her approach to it had struck a chord: people were prepared to empathise instead of criticise, and believed in her seriousness.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/rory-stewart-three-reasons-why-we-won-copeland-theresa-may-trudi-harrison-and-labours-long-failure-to-deliver.html

At her best she has something of the Angela Merkel about her. If she coud curb the temptation to ape Maggie (thankfully not too often these days) by not trying to appear resolute instead of keeping her natural humility she could stay popular even without Corbyn's help

"and ran a candidate who was a local doctor and ambulance driver" that certainly wouldn't survive even a cursory fact check... but an excellent piece by Rory.

@GillTroughton is a doctor, but ceased practising when she married and had children. She then worked for the ambulance service. It is all water under the bridge now, but why do you persist with your "alternative facts" about her?

She didnt complete her first F1 rotation, has not now or has ever had a medical license. Her LinkedIn profile claimed she "trained to be a surgeon", yes during her foundation year which she never completed. The press release after she was selected referred to her as a local doctor. Utter nonsense.

Dixie

Pong said:

Dixie said:

However, Nationalism will now be the new centre (as it always should have been).

Which nationalism(s)?

British are the most respected people in the world, and parties will stop putting the Brits last. Thanks, to UKIP, Trump etc.

MonikerDiCanio

old_labour said:

Sadiq Khan today ignites the independence debate by comparing Scottish nationalism to racism.

Writing in the Record, the Labour Mayor of London insists there is no real difference between voting for a separate Scotland and “trying to divide us on the basis of background, race or religion”.

Khan also compares Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP to politicians like Donald Trump who seek to fuel division.

Perceptive of Khan to notice that Scottish nationalists are Scottish nationalists.

Dixie

Dixie said:

Pong said:

Dixie said:

However, Nationalism will now be the new centre (as it always should have been).

Which nationalism(s)?

British are the most respected people in the world, and parties will stop putting the Brits last. Thanks, to UKIP, Trump etc.

I don't mean Nazism, murder, incarceration etc. I mean that Brits are not put at the back of the housing queue etc etc