Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
It amazing when polls come thick and fast how we quickly we forget . Only this morning was yet another poll which showed Tories with 22% lead.
Sure, but it shows that while the Tories are up, Labour are not trending any further down on average, not yet. That's significant when one is considering if a landslide or a mere pounding win is in the offing.
And I do think some Tories are complacent on what it will look like if the CPS seeks to prosecute a signficant number of Tory MPs. For people making the journey to Tory for the first time, 'evidence' they are the dodgy party could cause hesitance.
Its possible, perhaps probable, that the Labour vote is in very bad shape among certain demographics / constituencies but strong in other demographics / constituencies.
And that Labour is holding strong where the LibDems should have potential to make gains.
An alternate hypothesis - unfortunate for Lab if that is the case, since the overall impression is stability and it would make them think they are not in as bad a situation as they are.
Indeed.
Losing votes to the Conservatives is far more costly for Labour than losing them to the LibDems.
And if the LibDems do manage to get their act into gear ...
We’d been to Pizza Express and fancied some chocolate back home in front of the telly. “Drinksworld” had just closed so I was running towards Sainsbury’s.
A bloke stops me.
“Sainsbury’s is closed mate. You won’t get any booze there. You’ll have to go to the Co-op.”
“Oh. OK. I wanted chocolate. I won’t bother. “
He says, “I always have something to eat”, and reaches into his rucksack. “I can sell you Kit Kat for a pound. I’ve got a receipt.”
He produces a 4 bar multi-pack of Kit Kat.
Now I’m keen. ‘Have you got two?”
“F*** off! Two for a pound! I’m doing you a favour here mate!”
“No. I meant two for two pounds. Have you got two?”
“What do you think I am? A f***ing sweet shop!”
(I bought the £1 pack and am now enjoying it. A bargain!)
Further observation re: the polls. Even if we ignore the Survation poll from the 22nd, which looks like an outlier, Labour have had two 27% scores and a 29% in the last five polls. Looking at the trend, it is by no means impossible that Labour is ticking upwards slightly through re-capturing a minority of the voters deserting Ukip, and by squeezing the Greens. The Lib Dem vote share looks to have levelled off.
I'm still not sure that I buy Labour's final total getting as high as 29% though - not when Gordon Brown only managed that, and Ed Miliband finished with just short of 31%. The leadership and economic competence indicators were a better predictor of the 2015 result than all those hung Parliament forecasts based on headline VI, and this time Labour is trailing on both of said indicators by much wider margins.
Is it possible that the polls are over-estimating Labour and under-estimating the Tories yet again? Guess we won't know until the votes are counted.
Does anyone have a list of where the largest Green votes were by constituency in 2015 ?
I'm pretty sure that they will be places where Labour getting some of them back wont do it much good.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Rumours in Bosworth that Tredinnick not standing. He rarely bothers to come to the constituency anyway though.
I am doing some canvassing on Sat there, as it is our local LD target. We have a great local candidate.
20% majority to overcome and 17% UKIP vote last time. Lib Dems exceptionally confident if that is really a target.
Compared to the national vote in 2010 20% is a pretty strong showing. The best chance in the East Midlands for LDs, I think. The biggest town (Hinckley) in the constituency has an equal number of councillors. This is our candidate:
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. What else can you do?
Well, you can expect your Government to run the show to the best of its ability and take decisions in the best interests of the country, even if that goes against the flow of popular opinion at times. We are particularly entitled to expect that in respect of matters which the average Joe and Joanna can hardly be expected to fully comprehend, even after lengthy, full, open and honest debate. If the subject in question is one likely to determine our future well-being for generations to come it is especially important that the people we have elected show some statemanship, and lead. OK, they may suffer for it electorally. We may decide to replace them when they are next up for election. But as long as they are our representatives, they are obliged to do their best for us, or so you would think.
So you think she will achieve a deal that will suit the majority? So what? If that majority is blinkered and ignorant of public affairs, what's the good in that? A majority of nodding donkeys is no help to anybody. OK, I said idiots, but you see what I mean.
I'm not suggesting the public should be ignored, or led by the nose (although even that is sometimes justified) but the responsibity for making decisions - big ones that really matter to the country, its present well being and future - should be in the hands of responsible statesmen and politicians who are not just in the business of 'suiting a majority'. If that's all there is to politics, any fool can do it.
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
Those who believe the Tories will achieve a much smaller overall majority than generally expected, say one of of 100 seats or less, might like to consider the following combination bet with those nice folk at Bet365:
Between 326-350 Tory Seats (i.e. Maj of 2 - 50) Stake 1/3rd total at odds of 10/1
Between 351-375 Tory seats (i.e. Maj of 52 - 100) Stake 2/3rds total at odds of 9/2
Should either element prove successful the bet pays winning odds of 2.67/1 (i.e. 3.67 decimal) on total stake.
We’d been to Pizza Express and fancied some chocolate back home in front of the telly. “Drinksworld” had just closed so I was running towards Sainsbury’s.
A bloke stops me.
“Sainsbury’s is closed mate. You won’t get any booze there. You’ll have to go to the Co-op.”
“Oh. OK. I wanted chocolate. I won’t bother. “
He says, “I always have something to eat”, and reaches into his rucksack. “I can sell you Kit Kat for a pound. I’ve got a receipt.”
He produces a 4 bar multi-pack of Kit Kat.
Now I’m keen. ‘Have you got two?”
“F*** off! Two for a pound! I’m doing you a favour here mate!”
“No. I meant two for two pounds. Have you got two?”
“What do you think I am? A f***ing sweet shop!”
(I bought the £1 pack and am now enjoying it. A bargain!)
That's very funny.
I had a dog sitting at the next table. I smiled at him. i didn't think I had any choice.
No, depending on what you mean by landslide. (though again, how can Labour be on the same as 2 years ago? At risk of sounding Corbynista like, I've never seen or heard the sort of things about him and his cohorts before)
I've heard absolutely nothing from vox pops, or reading comments on news sites, or heard in person that makes me think Labour are even close to 2010 or 2015. So unless there are a hell of a lot of shy Corbynistas I expect Labour to do a lot worse than those two elections, how much remains to be seen, but it could easily be once in a generation bad.
FWIW I'm not encountering many Labour defections over Corbyn (some not happy, but not actually defecting) or anything else, but also virtually no switchers from other parties. Defections are however getting rarer as the Labour campaign has been making the running for a few days. So something like 27-29 feels about right.
It's always hard to work out what's happening to the other parties (someone who says "Not interested" might be anything, including a non-voter) but apart from a little middle-class flirtation with LibDems my impression is that it's all UKIP->Con movement.
I think that the Leaver ship sailed some time ago, via UKIP to Tories.
Hard to see Labour gaining Broxtowe, Nuneaton and Broxtowe, but without them it means perpetual opposition.
Further observation re: the polls. Even if we ignore the Survation poll from the 22nd, which looks like an outlier, Labour have had two 27% scores and a 29% in the last five polls. Looking at the trend, it is by no means impossible that Labour is ticking upwards slightly through re-capturing a minority of the voters deserting Ukip, and by squeezing the Greens. The Lib Dem vote share looks to have levelled off.
I'm still not sure that I buy Labour's final total getting as high as 29% though - not when Gordon Brown only managed that, and Ed Miliband finished with just short of 31%. The leadership and economic competence indicators were a better predictor of the 2015 result than all those hung Parliament forecasts based on headline VI, and this time Labour is trailing on both of said indicators by much wider margins.
Is it possible that the polls are over-estimating Labour and under-estimating the Tories yet again? Guess we won't know until the votes are counted.
Just a reminder that Brown scored 29.7% of the GB vote, and Miliband 31.2%. Or 30 and 31, rounded.
We’d been to Pizza Express and fancied some chocolate back home in front of the telly. “Drinksworld” had just closed so I was running towards Sainsbury’s.
A bloke stops me.
“Sainsbury’s is closed mate. You won’t get any booze there. You’ll have to go to the Co-op.”
“Oh. OK. I wanted chocolate. I won’t bother. “
He says, “I always have something to eat”, and reaches into his rucksack. “I can sell you Kit Kat for a pound. I’ve got a receipt.”
He produces a 4 bar multi-pack of Kit Kat.
Now I’m keen. ‘Have you got two?”
“F*** off! Two for a pound! I’m doing you a favour here mate!”
“No. I meant two for two pounds. Have you got two?”
“What do you think I am? A f***ing sweet shop!”
(I bought the £1 pack and am now enjoying it. A bargain!)
No, depending on what you mean by landslide. (though again, how can Labour be on the same as 2 years ago? At risk of sounding Corbynista like, I've never seen or heard the sort of things about him and his cohorts before)
I've heard absolutely nothing from vox pops, or reading comments on news sites, or heard in person that makes me think Labour are even close to 2010 or 2015. So unless there are a hell of a lot of shy Corbynistas I expect Labour to do a lot worse than those two elections, how much remains to be seen, but it could easily be once in a generation bad.
FWIW I'm not encountering many Labour defections over Corbyn (some not happy, but not actually defecting) or anything else, but also virtually no switchers from other parties. Defections are however getting rarer as the Labour campaign has been making the running for a few days. So something like 27-29 feels about right.
It's always hard to work out what's happening to the other parties (someone who says "Not interested" might be anything, including a non-voter) but apart from a little middle-class flirtation with LibDems my impression is that it's all UKIP->Con movement.
Have you been confirmed as the candidate ?
Looking at the results, your vote hardly changed during the last three elections:
2005 20,457 2010 20,196 2015 19,876
So its perhaps not surprising that you've never picked up hostility whilst canvassing.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
No, depending on what you mean by landslide. (though again, how can Labour be on the same as 2 years ago? At risk of sounding Corbynista like, I've never seen or heard the sort of things about him and his cohorts before)
I've heard absolutely nothing from vox pops, or reading comments on news sites, or heard in person that makes me think Labour are even close to 2010 or 2015. So unless there are a hell of a lot of shy Corbynistas I expect Labour to do a lot worse than those two elections, how much remains to be seen, but it could easily be once in a generation bad.
FWIW I'm not encountering many Labour defections over Corbyn (some not happy, but not actually defecting) or anything else, but also virtually no switchers from other parties. Defections are however getting rarer as the Labour campaign has been making the running for a few days. So something like 27-29 feels about right.
It's always hard to work out what's happening to the other parties (someone who says "Not interested" might be anything, including a non-voter) but apart from a little middle-class flirtation with LibDems my impression is that it's all UKIP->Con movement.
Have you been confirmed as the candidate ?
Looking at the results, your vote hardly changed during the last three elections:
2005 20,457 2010 20,196 2015 19,876
So its perhaps not surprising that you've never picked up hostility whilst canvassing.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. What else can you do?
Well, you can expect your Government to run the show to the best of its ability and take decisions in the best interests of the country, even if that goes against the flow of popular opinion at times. We are particularly entitled to expect that in respect of matters which the average Joe and Joanna can hardly be expected to fully comprehend, even after lengthy, full, open and honest debate. If the subject in question is one likely to determine our future well-being for generations to come it is especially important that the people we have elected show some statemanship, and lead. OK, they may suffer for it electorally. We may decide to replace them when they are next up for election. But as long as they are our representatives, they are obliged to do their best for us, or so you would think.
So you think she will achieve a deal that will suit the majority? So what? If that majority is blinkered and ignorant of public affairs, what's the good in that? A majority of nodding donkeys is no help to anybody. OK, I said idiots, but you see what I mean.
I'm not suggesting the public should be ignored, or led by the nose (although even that is sometimes justified) but the responsibity for making decisions - big ones that really matter to the country, its present well being and future - should be in the hands of responsible statesmen and politicians who are not just in the business of 'suiting a majority'. If that's all there is to politics, any fool can do it.
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
I think it includes most of the city centre as well (not quite the same as the university area) which makes it a very difficult prospect for the Tories.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
Lds were big at the uni when I was there in leicester near a decade ago, but being 3 Scottish generations away I've no doubt things are very different.
I hope Kendall does well. Kind of flopped after an interesting start to her leadership campaign, but feels like there's something there. *shallow hat on* Pretty too.
Worth noting perhaps that the diminished lead of 16 is still one point better than Margaret Thatcher achieved in her 1983 landslide (15.2) and we need more evidence to determine whether this is an outlier or the start of a trend.
No, depending on what you mean by landslide. (though again, how can Labour be on the same as 2 years ago? At risk of sounding Corbynista like, I've never seen or heard the sort of things about him and his cohorts before)
I've heard absolutely nothing from vox pops, or reading comments on news sites, or heard in person that makes me think Labour are even close to 2010 or 2015. So unless there are a hell of a lot of shy Corbynistas I expect Labour to do a lot worse than those two elections, how much remains to be seen, but it could easily be once in a generation bad.
FWIW I'm not encountering many Labour defections over Corbyn (some not happy, but not actually defecting) or anything else, but also virtually no switchers from other parties. Defections are however getting rarer as the Labour campaign has been making the running for a few days. So something like 27-29 feels about right.
It's always hard to work out what's happening to the other parties (someone who says "Not interested" might be anything, including a non-voter) but apart from a little middle-class flirtation with LibDems my impression is that it's all UKIP->Con movement.
Interesting. Confirms the polling data which shows a very small swing in mainly middle-class areas like Broxtowe.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Unfortunately people are allowed to vote for idiots. It's the parties' faults for selecting them.
Worth noting perhaps that the diminished lead of 16 is still one point better than Margaret Thatcher achieved in her 1983 landslide (15.2) and we need more evidence to determine whether this is an outlier or the start of a trend.
One of the things I love about PB is that, however much we pore over every poll, the invariable conclusion to each & every one is "We needs more polls".
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
I'm struggling to see what PtP's point actually is.
What he's saying about "... voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement..." is true for every person at every election every year from Parish council upwards. It's not a bad thing at all.
How?! Seriously, I'm not even a fan of May, and unlike others I've said Corbyn can appear genial, even authoritative and soothing at times, and I find it hard to fathom how so many people are 'not sure' on that question. One just looks and feels like a pm, the other...does not.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
Lds were big at the uni when I was there in leicester near a decade ago, but being 3 Scottish generations away I've no doubt things are very different.
I hope Kendall does well. Kind of flopped after an interesting start to her leadership campaign, but feels like there's something there. *shallow hat on* Pretty too.
If the Tories are not good value at Evens, then I take it you consider Liz Kendall IS value at 8/11 with Betfair Sportsbook?
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
I think it includes most of the city centre as well (not quite the same as the university area) which makes it a very difficult prospect for the Tories.
The seat was Tory from 83-87, and LD after the byelection briefly, before going Labour in 2005. That may well have been an anti war vote (though taxi licences were a big issue too!).
I think it unlikely to go Tory, but not 33 times as unlikely as Leicester West.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Unfortunately people are allowed to vote for idiots. It's the parties' faults for selecting them.
David Tredinnick's views on Homeopathy are extremely dangerous. There are instances where Cancer patients have forsaken their prescribed medication for homeopathic remedies. When I was asked to include homeopathy in the Medical Curriculum, I said - Sure, provide me with double blind control studies showing it works and I'll change the curriculum. Nobody ever contacted me.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
I have a brilliant solution for homeopathy - no, really, hear me out!
We start by giving the NHS a very large sum of money to fund all homeopathic treatment, research, publicity etc. say, £100 million.
Then, we take away £99,999,999.00 As all good supporters of homeopathy will realise, the remaining £1 will still have all the power of the original £100 million, and so they will be able to do all their work with that.
In return for this advice I am available to collect my OBE at a mutually convenient time.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
The seat does encompass WWC Braunstone, Beaumont Leys and New Parks, but also a lot of new hipster and students along the riverside and West End. Liz Kendall is popular locally, with her perky charm and clearly no Corbynite. She has grown her majority each election via personal vote.
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
personal vote really helps...as all those Lib Dem MP's can testify.
I expect Liz to have a smaller majority this time, but Con on evens is not value. Possibly worth 4/1.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
Lds were big at the uni when I was there in leicester near a decade ago, but being 3 Scottish generations away I've no doubt things are very different.
I hope Kendall does well. Kind of flopped after an interesting start to her leadership campaign, but feels like there's something there. *shallow hat on* Pretty too.
If the Tories are not good value at Evens, then I take it you consider Liz Kendall IS value at 8/11 with Betfair Sportsbook?
I wouldn't bet either way at those prices. There is better value elsewhere, but may well put a few quid on Liz closer to the time if the odds stay like this.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Unfortunately people are allowed to vote for idiots. It's the parties' faults for selecting them.
My point is simply that I could not vote for him. Nor could I vote for Zac Goldsmith (for very different reasons). The third Conservative candidate I could not vote for is someone my wife was at University with, and whom I know too much about.
How?! Seriously, I'm not even a fan of May, and unlike others I've said Corbyn can appear genial, even authoritative and soothing at times, and I find it hard to fathom how so many people are 'not sure' on that question. One just looks and feels like a pm, the other...does not.
Night.
The figures tonight are in contrast with the other polls today including Theresa May the most popular Pm even above Thatcher. It does look to be out of the trend but we will just have to see
For me, this (link below) was the stat that started me on my Tory landslide betting spree. I believe it's often said there that "best PM" is the best indicator of GE success and on that basis I see no reason to change my belief in an oncoming Tory landslide.
The Tories may not be popular - toxic, even. But this is not a vote about ideologies, it's a vote about who do you want to see as next PM, next person to represent us at the negotating table with the EU, next with their finger on the big red button. It ain't Corbyn.
People split slightly in favour of a hard Brexit over a soft one by 43 per cent to 36 per cent. More voters would trust a Conservative government under Mrs May than a Labour government under Mr Corbyn to negotiate leaving the EU, by 45 per cent to 16.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
I have a brilliant solution for homeopathy - no, really, hear me out!
We start by giving the NHS a very large sum of money to fund all homeopathic treatment, research, publicity etc. say, £100 million.
Then, we take away £99,999,999.00 As all good supporters of homeopathy will realise, the remaining £1 will still have all the power of the original £100 million, and so they will be able to do all their work with that.
In return for this advice I am available to collect my OBE at a mutually convenient time.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
(Big G: I do not understand your reference to idiots.)
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. S
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
Well I'm sure nobody is offended, Big G, because it's clear that I mean when it comes to complicated matters of policy, international affairs, economics and the like, most people (including myself) are pretty ill-informed and not very well qualified to make a judgement. No, of course I'm not saying they're idiots in the sense of being generally stupid. That would be unpleasant as well as plainly wrong. But in relation to the kind of sophistication you need to make a decent call on matters like Remain/Leave, yes we're mostly desperately lacking and in that sense, a bunch idiots. Isn't that why we appoint representatives to make decisions on our behalf?
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
I believe we should all be able to discuss and argue without, as some do, descending into abuse. I do actually see the nuance of your point but I suppose most people just get on with their lives without being political geeks.
Time to put the tablet on charge -- have a good night
Theresa May was REALLY, REALLY weak at PMQs today on the Triple Lock question, an obvious one for her to be asked about and one she should have coped with 100% competently. In that regard she's hopelessly behind Cameron.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
I have thought that all along and I am sure the moderators will be very quick to ban comments on the cases
You guys can be civil and disagree. But let's be honest, there are a couple of posters who are so extraordinarily stupid that insults, sarcasm and extreme rudeness are the only way to make a point.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
It would depend on the following
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
I have a brilliant solution for homeopathy - no, really, hear me out!
We start by giving the NHS a very large sum of money to fund all homeopathic treatment, research, publicity etc. say, £100 million.
Then, we take away £99,999,999.00 As all good supporters of homeopathy will realise, the remaining £1 will still have all the power of the original £100 million, and so they will be able to do all their work with that.
In return for this advice I am available to collect my OBE at a mutually convenient time.
Thanks and good night.
Augustus.
An OBE would be the least you would deserve for rationalising homeopathy funding. In fact it would be probably be an inadequate reward for you efforts; a drop in the ocean.
Theresa May was REALLY, REALLY weak at PMQs today on the Triple Lock question, an obvious one for her to be asked about and one she should have coped with 100% competently. In that regard she's hopelessly behind Cameron.
Before my battery goes - I tend to agree but she will not reveal the manifesto before 8th May when I expect it will be included along with many eye catching themes. Abolition on the HOL and replaced with elected chamber would be a real winnner
How?! Seriously, I'm not even a fan of May, and unlike others I've said Corbyn can appear genial, even authoritative and soothing at times, and I find it hard to fathom how so many people are 'not sure' on that question. One just looks and feels like a pm, the other...does not.
Night.
The figures tonight are in contrast with the other polls today including Theresa May the most popular Pm even above Thatcher. It does look to be out of the trend but we will just have to see
We'll see indeed. I'll be interested to see the crossbreaks of the YouGov poll in terms of whether Labour has started to claw back any of the party's 2015 Leave supporters. The poll was taken on the back of Starmer's speech, which gave a more coherent Labour position on Brexit including quite a bit of reporting that Labour had moved its position away from free movement. There's room for a bit of underlying movement in a 7 point net change even if the rest of the change is just an outlier.
You guys can be civil and disagree. But let's be honest, there are a couple of posters who are so extraordinarily stupid that insults, sarcasm and extreme rudeness are the only way to make a point.
As a relative newbie here, I would like to say that the level of civility as much as the level of debate (as well as the mods stepping in when people overstep their boundaries) is what keeps me coming back here.
The internet has become particularly screechy in the last year or so - this site is a real port of calm in a storm, as well as a fantastic source of information!
Even if kept under wraps, it will be very bad PR for the Tories - remember how the polls reacted to MPs' fiddled expenses a few years back. What we don't know is whether those suspected of wrongdoing, i.e. the MPs and their agents have been removed from the GE 2016 scene.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
It would depend on the following
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
In case 3, it surely wouldn't be in the public interest to disrupt the election campaign like that so if they're going to charge, they need to charge soon.
You are joking, seriously what were they thinking?!
I'm looking forward to Zac's campaign:
"Hi, my name is Zac and I'm opposed to Heathrow expansion. I realise my party is in favour, but rest assured, if the decision is taken to go forward with its expansion, then I'll resign. Again."
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
I'm struggling to see what PtP's point actually is.
What he's saying about "... voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement..." is true for every person at every election every year from Parish council upwards. It's not a bad thing at all.
I agree, Geoff - no bad thing at all. That's modern democracy, and warts and all it's not a bad system.
The referendum was something else. You take a fiendishly difficult subject, ignore its nuances and offer a binary choice to an electorate which is confronted with highly confusing if not actually dishonest data and the result on that day (which of course could easily be different on another day) is taken to decide the nation's future for generations to come.
That is a bad thing - a very bad thing. At best you might call it populism. Personally I'd call it nonsense on stilts.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
It would depend on the following
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
In case 3, it surely wouldn't be in the public interest to disrupt the election campaign like that so if they're going to charge, they need to charge soon.
Well the files have been passed to the CPS.
I do wonder, if there are multiple people charged, they'll do it as a big bang, rather than a drip drip of people being charged over various days.
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
It would depend on the following
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
Before it was a joke but now you bring up (4) again proving it to be a lame deflection tactic.
2 million voters don't change their mind about who the best PM is in a week (-6% May). This is clearly just a slightly left leaning/pro remain sample !
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
2 million voters don't change their mind about who the best PM is in a week (-6% May). This is clearly just a slightly left leaning/pro remain sample !
It does seem to be as all the movements are consistent with that
Are we getting a bit overexcited about the CPS decision? If they decide to prosecute, it will be sub judice so the broadcast media will need to treat it with kid gloves. If other parties try to take advantage they could get into hot water too.
Thoughts?
It would depend on the following
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
Before it was a joke but now you bring up (4) again proving it to be a lame deflection tactic.
There was an article in The Times a few weeks ago which said Downing Street spent 20% of its time on this expenses saga.
Sky reported earlier that the police had sent the papers on Thanet South to the CPS today.
Surely it will be weeks before they make a decision
Nope, they were granted a year's extension last May to decide on whether come up with a charging decision. So the decisions will be made in the next month
Mrs May today has a higher best PM rating than Thatcher or Blair at their height and of course the CPS charges all related to election expenses authorised under Cameron's leadership
There first two are a bit odd because (a) UKIP came second and (b) there's no chance of the Tories losing the seat. Wells makes more sense because the absence of a UKIP candidate could help the Tories stave off a possible LD challenge.
Further observation re: the polls. Even if we ignore the Survation poll from the 22nd, which looks like an outlier, Labour have had two 27% scores and a 29% in the last five polls. Looking at the trend, it is by no means impossible that Labour is ticking upwards slightly through re-capturing a minority of the voters deserting Ukip, and by squeezing the Greens. The Lib Dem vote share looks to have levelled off.
I'm still not sure that I buy Labour's final total getting as high as 29% though - not when Gordon Brown only managed that, and Ed Miliband finished with just short of 31%. The leadership and economic competence indicators were a better predictor of the 2015 result than all those hung Parliament forecasts based on headline VI, and this time Labour is trailing on both of said indicators by much wider margins.
Is it possible that the polls are over-estimating Labour and under-estimating the Tories yet again? Guess we won't know until the votes are counted.
Gordon Brown actually managed 29.7% whilst Miliband polled 31.2%. These are GB figures - which is what pollsters measure!
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
I'm struggling to see what PtP's point actually is.
What he's saying about "... voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement..." is true for every person at every election every year from Parish council upwards. It's not a bad thing at all.
I agree, Geoff - no bad thing at all. That's modern democracy, and warts and all it's not a bad system.
The referendum was something else. You take a fiendishly difficult subject, ignore its nuances and offer a binary choice to an electorate which is confronted with highly confusing if not actually dishonest data and the result on that day (which of course could easily be different on another day) is taken to decide the nation's future for generations to come.
That is a bad thing - a very bad thing. At best you might call it populism. Personally I'd call it nonsense on stilts.
Thanks for the reply but I'm still struggling - although I'm grateful that you've indulged me up to this point.
I'd argue that deciding who is best to run a country is more of a "fiendishly difficult subject" than a single issue referendum. We've got to weigh up a vast amount of seemingly unrelated subjects - defence, law and order etc etc and still come to a binary choice about which single party to take us forward across all of them. We have to weigh up whether our support for, I dunno, randomly, Conservative grammar schools is more important than Labour's [insert policy here]. All in the face of dishonest LibDem bar charts and a result which will also decide things for generations.
Personally I think that your comments apply to both situations but are more appropriate for general elections than referenda.
I've got this nagging suspicion that I'm dancing on the head of a pin so I shall leave it there. Many thanks.
I can guarantee this is pretty much all sample variation >.>
It's a sign of the times we live in, the Tory lead cut to a mere 16% and Mrs May's lead as best PM cut by 9% in a week to 30% is considered a bad poll of the Tories.
Has anyone seen £350 million per week anywhere recently?
Hmmm, I've just had that question as a YouGov supplementary on tonight's survey so I assume I wasn't selected to be asked it as a meaningful question yesterday or earlier.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Denial of the existence of global warming is right up there with belief in the efficacy of homeopathy as far as the scientific community is concerned.
I guess the Conservatives really don't want to win Richmond.
He's one of the three Conservative candidates who I simply could not vote for.
Who are the other two if I may ask ?
Sure, David Tredinnick is one. And someone who went to university with my wife is another.
Even David Tredinnick has his use.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
You know, most homeopathy believers and practicers are pretty harmless. I believe in evidence based medicine, science and government. And I get the fact that someone - who charges a relatively modest amount - and listens to your problems for half an hour probably isn't doing any harm.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Denial of the existence of global warming is right up there with belief in the efficacy of homeopathy as far as the scientific community is concerned.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the climate changes over time.
I accept that is your view but to label a majority idiots is just unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to a view without being called an idiot
I'm struggling to see what PtP's point actually is.
What he's saying about "... voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement..." is true for every person at every election every year from Parish council upwards. It's not a bad thing at all.
I agree, Geoff - no bad thing at all. That's modern democracy, and warts and all it's not a bad system.
The referendum was something else. You take a fiendishly difficult subject, ignore its nuances and offer a binary choice to an electorate which is confronted with highly confusing if not actually dishonest data and the result on that day (which of course could easily be different on another day) is taken to decide the nation's future for generations to come.
That is a bad thing - a very bad thing. At best you might call it populism. Personally I'd call it nonsense on stilts.
Thanks for the reply but I'm still struggling - although I'm grateful that you've indulged me up to this point.
I'd argue that deciding who is best to run a country is more of a "fiendishly difficult subject" than a single issue referendum. We've got to weigh up a vast amount of seemingly unrelated subjects - defence, law and order etc etc and still come to a binary choice about which single party to take us forward across all of them. We have to weigh up whether our support for, I dunno, randomly, Conservative grammar schools is more important than Labour's [insert policy here]. All in the face of dishonest LibDem bar charts and a result which will also decide things for generations.
Personally I think that your comments apply to both situations but are more appropriate for general elections than referenda.
I've got this nagging suspicion that I'm dancing on the head of a pin so I shall leave it there. Many thanks.
No, prob.
It's a tricky one so I'll just make a fairly obvious point - that a GE comes round every five years or so and with it the opportunity to change the Government, or at least your own mind. The referendum not only undid about fourty years of work, it altered dramatically the direction of the country for generations to come. In that sense alone it presented the voting public with a decision of a rather different order.
There first two are a bit odd because (a) UKIP came second and (b) there's no chance of the Tories losing the seat. Wells makes more sense because the absence of a UKIP candidate could help the Tories stave off a possible LD challenge.
The first two make total sense, they are leavers. There's no point wasting limited resources. Lets be honest, the tactic is in part motivated by money or lack thereof.
Leicester the council just barely voted REMAIN by 51% but that means the whitest constituency of the 3 Leicester West voted Leave. it is 64% white british.
Liz Kendall has on the face of it a safe seat. But the tories have a massive 17% ukip vote to squeeze which is almost as big as her majority of 21%.
If you take just 5% from Labour to tory you get Lab 41% Tory 31%, if you then take away half the ukip vote and give it to the tories which is what the polls are showing then you get 39.5% tory for a result of:
Labour 41%
Tory 39.5%
Folks this is NOT a safe Labour seat IF the current polls are right.
Also remember in some places like London UKIP don't have 13% for the tories to squeeze so just like Libdem to tory swings were bigger in seats they held in 2015 so ukip to tory swings will be bigger in seats like this.
I can guarantee this is pretty much all sample variation >.>
It's a sign of the times we live in, the Tory lead cut to a mere 16% and Mrs May's lead as best PM cut by 9% in a week to 30% is considered a bad poll of the Tories.
I can see PtP's point and mostly I agree with it. I'm happy to let the government decide on, say, the building of a major new motorway, or making a deal with a foreign government. Where the people HAVE to make the decision is in questions of who governs them. Who I trust to govern me is a key factor in shaping my sense of the community that I belong to.
Thus, the Scottish people have to be the ones to decide if they remain part of the UK or opt for independence - NOT the Scottish parliament.
The people of Gibraltar have to decide whether they remain attached to the UK under the present constitutional arrangements, or join Spain.
And the people of the UK have to decide if they see their future as part of some sort of European Federation or not. (So that nobody gets wound up by this particular example, let me say that it is fair comment for any individual to prefer this option, just as it is understandable that other people will have reasons for preferring the opposite).
I can guarantee this is pretty much all sample variation >.>
It's a sign of the times we live in, the Tory lead cut to a mere 16% and Mrs May's lead as best PM cut by 9% in a week to 30% is considered a bad poll of the Tories.
Considered by whom?
The Corbynites. They are ignoring YouGov are owned by Tories and think the 9% reduction is a sign of Corbyn winning on June 8th.
I can guarantee this is pretty much all sample variation >.>
It's a sign of the times we live in, the Tory lead cut to a mere 16% and Mrs May's lead as best PM cut by 9% in a week to 30% is considered a bad poll of the Tories.
Considered by whom?
The Corbynites. They are ignoring YouGov are owned by Tories and think the 9% reduction is a sign of Corbyn winning on June 8th.
Jolly good. No straw too slender......meanwhile there may be less than meets the eye to the SCON to SNP defector...
I can see PtP's point and mostly I agree with it. I'm happy to let the government decide on, say, the building of a major new motorway, or making a deal with a foreign government. Where the people HAVE to make the decision is in questions of who governs them. Who I trust to govern me is a key factor in shaping my sense of the community that I belong to.
Thus, the Scottish people have to be the ones to decide if they remain part of the UK or opt for independence - NOT the Scottish parliament.
The people of Gibraltar have to decide whether they remain attached to the UK under the present constitutional arrangements, or join Spain.
And the people of the UK have to decide if they see their future as part of some sort of European Federation or not. (So that nobody gets wound up by this particular example, let me say that it is fair comment for any individual to prefer this option, just as it is understandable that other people will have reasons for preferring the opposite).
Just caught this on my way to bed, and yes, I agree.
Had the referendum been framed broadly in those terms, it would have been a lot more honest and the result far more authoritative.
There first two are a bit odd because (a) UKIP came second and (b) there's no chance of the Tories losing the seat. Wells makes more sense because the absence of a UKIP candidate could help the Tories stave off a possible LD challenge.
The first two make total sense, they are leavers. There's no point wasting limited resources. Lets be honest, the tactic is in part motivated by money or lack thereof.
To state the obvious, not contesting seats starts to hit a party's national share of the vote if it involves more than a handful of constituencies, and since UKIP probably aren't going to get any MPs their national share is the only thing they have to show for themselves.
It's a tricky one so I'll just make a fairly obvious point - that a GE comes round every five years or so and with it the opportunity to change the Government, or at least your own mind. The referendum not only undid about fourty years of work, it altered dramatically the direction of the country for generations to come. In that sense alone it presented the voting public with a decision of a rather different order.
So be it, that is what the nation voted for in a referendum after voting to get that choice at a general election. It was also the summation of decades of work by sceptics to build power in Parliament that enabled the referendum to occur.
If Eurofederalists can build power in Westminster (and they already have a base) in our general elections every five years then they can change our direction again. This is not final because the elections you mention will come around again.
Comments
In Leicester it is a mistake to assume BME voted Remain. By and large this is true of Muslims and West Indians, but much less so for Hindus (as indeed we see on PB).
Con at evens on PP is not value here. Not when 33/1 is availible on Leicester South.
He was able to upset our old friend tim with his medical opinions.
Seven under 21, seven over 21 so 21 is the median.
You're right that it's the mode too.
edited to correct Times DK figure
Today's Britain
I can confirm from canvassing reports that he has a strong personal vote, but Olney has worked the seat hard since she got in.
It will be close, I've not staked on this seat either way.
Losing votes to the Conservatives is far more costly for Labour than losing them to the LibDems.
And if the LibDems do manage to get their act into gear ...
I'm pretty sure that they will be places where Labour getting some of them back wont do it much good.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/michael_mullaney
Most people who voted in the referendum didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against - and that is true of both sides, although I suppose you could just about say that Remainers had a slightly better idea if only because we were actually in the EU already. Even on a fairly intellectual site like this the level of understanding was fairly shallow. I'm as good an example as any. I've followed politics all my life and even written about it, but even I didn't think about what leaving might mean for, say, Gibraltar, or Scottish Independence, or the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. So on voting day I took a reluctant stab at getting the answer right. I would have preferred to vote 'Remain, but.....'. It wasn't an option. Nor was 'Leave, but....' So, I did my best, and voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement. What else can you do?
Well, you can expect your Government to run the show to the best of its ability and take decisions in the best interests of the country, even if that goes against the flow of popular opinion at times. We are particularly entitled to expect that in respect of matters which the average Joe and Joanna can hardly be expected to fully comprehend, even after lengthy, full, open and honest debate. If the subject in question is one likely to determine our future well-being for generations to come it is especially important that the people we have elected show some statemanship, and lead. OK, they may suffer for it electorally. We may decide to replace them when they are next up for election. But as long as they are our representatives, they are obliged to do their best for us, or so you would think.
So you think she will achieve a deal that will suit the majority? So what? If that majority is blinkered and ignorant of public affairs, what's the good in that? A majority of nodding donkeys is no help to anybody. OK, I said idiots, but you see what I mean.
I'm not suggesting the public should be ignored, or led by the nose (although even that is sometimes justified) but the responsibity for making decisions - big ones that really matter to the country, its present well being and future - should be in the hands of responsible statesmen and politicians who are not just in the business of 'suiting a majority'. If that's all there is to politics, any fool can do it.
The politicians who led us into our current situation shirked their responsibilities. Those who perceive their task now as merely to find some sort of majority are continuing in the same irresponsible vein.
Is that clear now, Big G? Hope so. I need some sleep.
Between 326-350 Tory Seats (i.e. Maj of 2 - 50) Stake 1/3rd total at odds of 10/1
Between 351-375 Tory seats (i.e. Maj of 52 - 100) Stake 2/3rds total at odds of 9/2
Should either element prove successful the bet pays winning odds of 2.67/1 (i.e. 3.67 decimal) on total stake.
..... added bonus - you get to sleep nights!
DYOR
I had a dog sitting at the next table. I smiled at him. i didn't think I had any choice.
Hard to see Labour gaining Broxtowe, Nuneaton and Broxtowe, but without them it means perpetual opposition.
Btw Here in the Smoke Sainsbury's are open 24/7.
Looking at the results, your vote hardly changed during the last three elections:
2005 20,457
2010 20,196
2015 19,876
So its perhaps not surprising that you've never picked up hostility whilst canvassing.
33/1 in Lei South is much better value. The seat has been both LD and Tory in the last 30 years, and is the wealthier part of town, but also the large Saffron Lane and Eyres Monsell council estate. The BME popularion is mostly Gujerati Hindu and middle class, and there is a big University vote. If the Students and Uni vote breaks for LD, then the Tories could come through the middle.
I hope Kendall does well. Kind of flopped after an interesting start to her leadership campaign, but feels like there's something there. *shallow hat on* Pretty too.
But homeopathy is merely the most obvious of Tredinnick's divorcement from reality. He really believes in astrology and has pushed for its inclusion in the NHS. He's a fan of remote healing. That's proper bonkers, that is. And then there's the MMR vaccine.
There are many parts of science and policy that right thinking people can disagree about. We can talk about the extent to which equality of opportunity infringes on parent's rights. We can discuss whether global warming exists. We can argue about the best way to run a criminal justice system or what the correct rate of marginal tax is.
All these things are - passionately - debatable.
But astrology is not. Nor is remote healing. Nor homeopathy. Tredinnick is a fraud or an idiot. Whichever it is, he shouldn't be an elected official.
Goodnight all.
Con 45.50%
Lab 25.89%
UKIP 8.44%
Lib Dem 10.78%
The SDs are about what you would expect on natural variation, except UKIP which is higher.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/857370248621772800
Esther McVey has been selected as Conservative candidate for Tatton.
What he's saying about "... voted in accordance with the nearest approximation to my best judgement..." is true for every person at every election every year from Parish council upwards. It's not a bad thing at all.
Night.
I think it unlikely to go Tory, but not 33 times as unlikely as Leicester West.
We start by giving the NHS a very large sum of money to fund all homeopathic treatment, research, publicity etc. say, £100 million.
Then, we take away £99,999,999.00 As all good supporters of homeopathy will realise, the remaining £1 will still have all the power of the original £100 million, and so they will be able to do all their work with that.
In return for this advice I am available to collect my OBE at a mutually convenient time.
Thanks and good night.
The Tories may not be popular - toxic, even. But this is not a vote about ideologies, it's a vote about who do you want to see as next PM, next person to represent us at the negotating table with the EU, next with their finger on the big red button. It ain't Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/JamesKanag/status/854393623772897282
People split slightly in favour of a hard Brexit over a soft one by 43 per cent to 36 per cent. More voters would trust a Conservative government under Mrs May than a Labour government under Mr Corbyn to negotiate leaving the EU, by 45 per cent to 16.
Anyway the substantive point was to explain why I didn't think 'suiting a majority' should be regarded as some sort of laudable objective, or at least not in the matter under discussion.
Thanks for your patience in reading what I wrote, and responding civily.
Thoughts?
Time to put the tablet on charge -- have a good night
You guys can be civil and disagree. But let's be honest, there are a couple of posters who are so extraordinarily stupid that insults, sarcasm and extreme rudeness are the only way to make a point.
1) The number charged, 1 or 2, you could dismiss, more than half a dozen, then it's a proper news cycle
2) Then people would focus on Mrs May's decision to hold an early election, already the allegations are out there she called it to avoid losing her majority. One of the biggest polling shifts we've ever seen is when Brown denied he was thinking of calling an early election.
3) If the charges come after May 11th, then it causes all sorts of problems because some of them will have been nominated, and nominations will have closed, they'll be on the ballot paper.
4) Related to 2) Depends how heavily the media focus on Nick Timothy, Mrs May could have blamed the ancien régime, but like Coulson, it becomes a story.
An OBE would be the least you would deserve for rationalising homeopathy funding. In fact it would be probably be an inadequate reward for you efforts; a drop in the ocean.
The internet has become particularly screechy in the last year or so - this site is a real port of calm in a storm, as well as a fantastic source of information!
"Hi, my name is Zac and I'm opposed to Heathrow expansion. I realise my party is in favour, but rest assured, if the decision is taken to go forward with its expansion, then I'll resign. Again."
The referendum was something else. You take a fiendishly difficult subject, ignore its nuances and offer a binary choice to an electorate which is confronted with highly confusing if not actually dishonest data and the result on that day (which of course could easily be different on another day) is taken to decide the nation's future for generations to come.
That is a bad thing - a very bad thing. At best you might call it populism. Personally I'd call it nonsense on stilts.
I do wonder, if there are multiple people charged, they'll do it as a big bang, rather than a drip drip of people being charged over various days.
Back in December, when the focus was on Thanet South, he wrote
"PB sources have also reported concern within the Tory HQ about other seats."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/12/08/guido-says-the-tories-are-bracing-themselves-for-charges-over-thanet-south/
Before Mrs May called the election, he did a piece where his sources told him that the Crosby polling in the South West marginals was to do with worries over expense charges.
Which even Alex Salmond picked up on citing Mike
http://tinyurl.com/HannibalsSuchALoser
https://twitter.com/1000cuts/status/857377181181325312
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/857279889539518465
Has anyone seen £350 million per week anywhere recently?
Surely it will be weeks before they make a decision
Christchurch
Bournemouth West
Wells
There first two are a bit odd because (a) UKIP came second and (b) there's no chance of the Tories losing the seat. Wells makes more sense because the absence of a UKIP candidate could help the Tories stave off a possible LD challenge.
Lab + LD have a lower standard deviation in the polls than the individual parts btw.
I'd argue that deciding who is best to run a country is more of a "fiendishly difficult subject" than a single issue referendum. We've got to weigh up a vast amount of seemingly unrelated subjects - defence, law and order etc etc and still come to a binary choice about which single party to take us forward across all of them. We have to weigh up whether our support for, I dunno, randomly, Conservative grammar schools is more important than Labour's [insert policy here]. All in the face of dishonest LibDem bar charts and a result which will also decide things for generations.
Personally I think that your comments apply to both situations but are more appropriate for general elections than referenda.
I've got this nagging suspicion that I'm dancing on the head of a pin so I shall leave it there. Many thanks.
I voted "Strongly Disagree", obviously.
Edit to remove the tweet
UKIP to win more seats than Labour ..... 16/1
I mean, would anyone back this at 1600/1, 16,000/1 even?
It's a tricky one so I'll just make a fairly obvious point - that a GE comes round every five years or so and with it the opportunity to change the Government, or at least your own mind. The referendum not only undid about fourty years of work, it altered dramatically the direction of the country for generations to come. In that sense alone it presented the voting public with a decision of a rather different order.
Who I trust to govern me is a key factor in shaping my sense of the community that I belong to.
Thus, the Scottish people have to be the ones to decide if they remain part of the UK or opt for independence - NOT the Scottish parliament.
The people of Gibraltar have to decide whether they remain attached to the UK under the present constitutional arrangements, or join Spain.
And the people of the UK have to decide if they see their future as part of some sort of European Federation or not. (So that nobody gets wound up by this particular example, let me say that it is fair comment for any individual to prefer this option, just as it is understandable that other people will have reasons for preferring the opposite).
Iain Martin
A Conservative victory will give the PM the Brexit mandate she needs but it could create an over-mighty government"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/why-tories-should-fear-a-may-landslide-vk6m8bc7h
https://twitter.com/agentp22/status/857321520892346368
Had the referendum been framed broadly in those terms, it would have been a lot more honest and the result far more authoritative.
Nite everybody.
If Eurofederalists can build power in Westminster (and they already have a base) in our general elections every five years then they can change our direction again. This is not final because the elections you mention will come around again.