I can't understand why the LDs aren't doing better in the polls, especially with May being so unsympathetic to Con/LD floating voters. Very mysterious.
Are they just seen as irrelevant? Farron isn't even prompted in "best PM" questions.
I'm starting to wonder whether he might lose his own seat in Westmorland.
The 24%-30% range for Labour suggests that the pollsters are flailing about with all their adjustments.
It's just MOE in reality. (Although that doesn't mean they aren't flailing)!
Not really. The +/-3% MOE for most polls is supposed to be at the extreme (well, Ok, 95% of the extreme). Remember that the normal distribution of random sampling is humped in the middle. 24% and 30% are only MOE if the middle is 27%. Yet most of the polls are way off that level. This isn't just random error - there is some systemic error in at least some of the polls that the adjustments are either not correcting, or more probably are creating.
The data collection method is not a probability based sample, quota, criteria and other methods are used. So the margin of error technically does not apply - and also since there can be no superior method to a true probabilistic method, in fact are lower bounds.
The true margin of error on any one poll is higher than the stated MoE.
Yes but for a number n of different polls with the same invididual margin of error, then subject to a few assumptions the collective margin of error around the mean is the inverse root of the same number. So for 9 polls each with individual MOE of +- 3, you would divide by root 9 and get a MOE +-1.
Also, the MOE quoted of +-3 is for a randomly conducted sample of around 1,000. But sampling in polls isn't random, rather it's weighted to correct for the effects of randomness as well as problems with constructing the sample by very strictly weighting to match the required numbers in each weighting group and groups within groups. So allowing for this the MOE from the remaining random sampling effects in any single poll is well below the +-3 routinely quoted by those who don't understand the implications of different sampling methods.
The problem with polls is instead structural bias, that is whether they are aiming off target in one direction consistently due to the way they are constructed. The house effects of different pollsters account for a lot of the quoted spread. But in reality that spread can also be due to underlying movement and there seems to have been a perceptible uplift in Labour polling in the past week or so.
I can't understand why the LDs aren't doing better in the polls, especially with May being so unsympathetic to Con/LD floating voters. Very mysterious.
They have said nothing so far to appeal to me (and I was willing to be wooed). It is all Brexit, and gay sex. I was there to be convinced, but I was a Corbyn/May remainer not a Europhile. Brexit will happen like it or not. Plus they have only Farron now. The days they could put Kennedy, Ashdown, Cable, Laws, etc. in front of the cameras are long gone.
I'm probably close to a Europhile, but not interested in stopping Brexit, it was democratically voted on and we should respect that. But we can still choose what kind of Brexit we want. The LD stance is to offer a referendum on the terms of the deal vs staying in - which means if you believe we should Brexit, then no problem you can vote in favour of the deal (most people would I think). That's a more real choice than the "eat this or starve" option proposed by Theresa May - accept the deal she negotiates or crash out with nothing.
Certainly, they have lost a lot of big beasts, but some are re-standing, it will take a bit of time to rebuild, and it's not like the Labour or Tory front benches are overflowing with beasts either.
I'll give you the gay sex issue - I was disappointed to see Farron stalling over it, it was clear the issue was gay sex not being gay, and it took too long to correct that.
Anyway, on why they aren't doing so well, I suspect it's because the election so far has seemed to be a 'Corbyn referendum', as suggested by @rottenborough , rather than a 'brexit election'.
I can't understand why the LDs aren't doing better in the polls, especially with May being so unsympathetic to Con/LD floating voters. Very mysterious.
It is all Brexit, and gay sex.
This is probably the most inappropriate and off topic I have ever been, but my immediate thought was:
Take back control...Hard: A Brexit Porno
Probably an indication to sign off.
I think SeanT finds aspects of Hard Brexit arousing certainly
Looks like the Telegraph online are comparing the €100bn demand to the Treaty of Versailles...
So within in 30 years the UK will be split into two, and 4 countries will effectively occupy a war ravaged UK?
I thought the treaty of Versailles settled the first world war, and Germany's reparations. I am not aware of Germany being either "war ravaged" in the way it was in WW2 or partitioned and occupied.
That's why I said 'within 30 years'
I'm from the school of history that says The Treaty of Versailles effectively caused WWII.
WWI was based on treaties, it is entirely given slightly different circumstances in WWI, we would have been one of the Central powers, whilst the Germans were one of the Allied Powers.
I am not of that school. I am of the school that the depression and subsequent protectionism stoked the rise of National Socialism.
That said, assuming we keep Nukes, I think we will be fine after invading Europe.
Looks like the Telegraph online are comparing the €100bn demand to the Treaty of Versailles...
So within in 30 years the UK will be split into two, and 4 countries will effectively occupy a war ravaged UK?
I thought the treaty of Versailles settled the first world war, and Germany's reparations. I am not aware of Germany being either "war ravaged" in the way it was in WW2 or partitioned and occupied.
That's why I said 'within 30 years'
I'm from the school of history that says The Treaty of Versailles effectively caused WWII.
WWI was based on treaties, it is entirely given slightly different circumstances in WWI, we would have been one of the Central powers, whilst the Germans were one of the Allied Powers.
Nope - we were in the Entente Cordiale since 1904, and signed a convention with Russia in 1907.
Looks like the Telegraph online are comparing the €100bn demand to the Treaty of Versailles...
So within in 30 years the UK will be split into two, and 4 countries will effectively occupy a war ravaged UK?
I thought the treaty of Versailles settled the first world war, and Germany's reparations. I am not aware of Germany being either "war ravaged" in the way it was in WW2 or partitioned and occupied.
That's why I said 'within 30 years'
I'm from the school of history that says The Treaty of Versailles effectively caused WWII.
WWI was based on treaties, it is entirely given slightly different circumstances in WWI, we would have been one of the Central powers, whilst the Germans were one of the Allied Powers.
I am not of that school. I am of the school that the depression and subsequent protectionism stoked the rise of National Socialism.
That said, assuming we keep Nukes, I think we will be fine after invading Europe.
Such an invasion will be justified in the context of us enforcing the Treaty of Troyes
Why I think the polls are still underestimating the Tory lead. From tonight's YouGov poll in The Times
When asked to choose who would make the better prime minister, 49 per cent said Mrs May and 21 per cent said Mr Corbyn. Six per cent of Labour voters would prefer Mrs May along with 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 61 per cent of Ukip voters.
Fifty-three per cent of people who voted Ukip in 2015 said they would vote for the Conservatives this time.
People were asked to nominate, unprompted, any Conservative or Labour campaign slogans they had heard in this election and 15 per cent replied “strong and stable”, Mrs May’s mantra, which she used 12 times on Sunday morning TV interviews. The other Tory slogan, “coalition of chaos” showed less sign of success and was chosen by just 2 per cent of voters, with Labour’s “many not the few” also chosen by 2 per cent.
More voters thought Labour had lots of policies compared with the Tories, but Labour’s policies were seen as far less well thought-through.
I can't understand why the LDs aren't doing better in the polls, especially with May being so unsympathetic to Con/LD floating voters. Very mysterious.
It is all Brexit, and gay sex.
This is probably the most inappropriate and off topic I have ever been, but my immediate thought was:
Take back control...Hard: A Brexit Porno
Probably an indication to sign off.
I think SeanT finds aspects of Hard Brexit arousing certainly
Hardly a commendation, is it?
If you are a millionaire thriller writer living in Primrose Hill it does not really matter for you which way it goes, so you can let the blood flow at will
Hmm... efforts being made by the Irish to get a good share of the €100 billion. I guess a squabble begins in the 27. I wonder if they will see a penny. The Germans will want the lions share.
We've been told that was already the most likely outcome, and the EU's position was set, indeed their hostile leaking indicated that. May's rhetoric will have had zero impact on any serious negotiations, since only fools would negotiate based off the remarks played for a domestic audience during an election campaign. As the EU are presumably not fools, it will have no impact on their position, therefore it cannot be a big deal.
The worrying thing about her remarks is that they show how she intends to approach Brexit politically - by sabre rattling and blaming the EU for everything that doesn't go her way. She could have, like some of her colleagues, laughed off the dinner leaks in public, had stern words in private and played off Juncker and the hardliners against other figures' desire for a deal. Colour me surprised, a politician has leaked conversations with the aim making themselves look good and justifying their position. It's what they do.
There's a real danger that she boxes herself and the EU into a situation where both us and them can't make a deal because it would involve losing too much politically. May because you can't put the jingoism genie back in the bottle - once you've set yourself up as the great protector of the nation against perfidious foreigners you can't compromise - or you put yourself on the wrong side of nationalism. The EU because it can't be seen to give in and undermine its rules at the behest of a member that's treated it with ill concealed hostility and those within the EU who were initially willing to accept a more beneficial deal are forced into the arms of the hardliners.
So far, our negotiations resemble the prisoner's dilemma, marching towards a very bad outcome for everyone due to the desire or each party to gain the jump on an adversary.
The problem with your analysis is that you've got what she said wrong and the EU's official position wrong.
What she mostly said is that the dreaded commission is trying to make this fail, I know the leaders are not.
It should be noted that the commission isn't supposed to be the negotiator but Barnier on behalf of the 27. In that sense she is railing against the commission and pointing out to the 27 that it is acting against their interests which is true, Juncker doesn't want a deal as that suits him best. It doesn't suit the 27, or at least most of them.
Both Macron and Le Pen want to reduce the size of the French national assembly: Le Pen from 577 to 300; Macron by a third. Question for nerds: when and in what country did an elected parliamentary chamber last vote in favour of drastically reducing its own size?
Both Macron and Le Pen want to reduce the size of the French national assembly: Le Pen from 577 to 300; Macron by a third. Question for nerds: when and in what country did an elected parliamentary chamber last vote in favour of drastically reducing its own size?
Not certain, but ew Zeeland voted to reduce form to chambers to one a few years ago, seems to be working out fine for them.
Brown got 29% and Miliband 30%. If Corbyn comes out with 28% (OK 27% adjusting for NI) then the case for him staying, in the eyes of his supporters, will there to be made....
Brown got 29% and Miliband 30%. If Corbyn comes out with 28% (OK 27% adjusting for NI) then the case for him staying, in the eyes of his supporters, will there to be made....
Hmm... efforts being made by the Irish to get a good share of the €100 billion. I guess a squabble begins in the 27. I wonder if they will see a penny. The Germans will want the lions share.
Don't Germany owe us at least that amount for the cost of WW2?
Brown got 29% and Miliband 30%. If Corbyn comes out with 28% (OK 27% adjusting for NI) then the case for him staying, in the eyes of his supporters, will there to be made....
Brown got 29.7% - Milliband 31.2%!
29.0 and 30.4%
Those are UK figures you muffet - not the GB fiures provided by pollsters! Such ignorance!
I'm a longtime PB reader, and was an occasional poster (back in the disqus days!), and now I'm back.
I've also been a longtime small-c conservative with an interest in politics but was never actively involved. No more.
Today my slowly simmering blood finally boiled.
The seething rage, hate and threats being directed toward the country I love by people who are now clearly & actively trying to damage it has caused me to sign up for a Conservative party membership.
The gloves are off and now is the time to actively support & campaign the only people with the will and the ability to defend the country I love!
I wonder how many people are thinking the same thing today!
TM should have kept her feelings under wraps; she has demeaned herself (and the UK) by her childish petulance today. This tweet from NS sums it up well "UK needs best possible Brexit deal and has limited leverage, so for PM to poison atmosphere for partisan reasons is deeply irresponsible". Car crash Brexit looms.
We've been told that was already the most likely outcome, and the EU's position was set, indeed their hostile leaking indicated that. May's rhetoric will have had zero impact on any serious negotiations, since only fools would negotiate based off the remarks played for a domestic audience during an election campaign. As the EU are presumably not fools, it will have no impact on their position, therefore it cannot be a big deal.
There's a real danger that she boxes herself and the EU into a situation where both us and them can't make a deal because it would involve losing too much politically.
The EUs ever increasing demands show that we are not the only ones playing that game.
The clear desire to punish the U.K. Is there to see. I think now everything is on the table. With the ultimate nuclear option of breaking NATO.
Both Macron and Le Pen want to reduce the size of the French national assembly: Le Pen from 577 to 300; Macron by a third. Question for nerds: when and in what country did an elected parliamentary chamber last vote in favour of drastically reducing its own size?
Brown got 29% and Miliband 30%. If Corbyn comes out with 28% (OK 27% adjusting for NI) then the case for him staying, in the eyes of his supporters, will there to be made....
Brown got 29.7% - Milliband 31.2%!
29.0 and 30.4%
Those are UK figures you muffet - not the GB fiures provided by pollsters! Such ignorance!
For those who just spent 2 and half hours watching an exhausting French catfight, and need a mood whiplash - this clip of Jimmy Kimmel talking about his son's heart surgery is worth watching. Very raw and emotional, regardless of your political views on Obamacare.
Both Macron and Le Pen want to reduce the size of the French national assembly: Le Pen from 577 to 300; Macron by a third. Question for nerds: when and in what country did an elected parliamentary chamber last vote in favour of drastically reducing its own size?
Not certain, but ew Zeeland voted to reduce form to chambers to one a few years ago, seems to be working out fine for them.
Interestingly, New Zealand is also one of the few (only?) Western countries to move from a majoritarian system to proportional representation - another thing both Macron and Le Pen have supported (Le Pen fully, Macron adding only a proportional top-up I believe)
I'm a longtime PB reader, and was an occasional poster (back in the disqus days!), and now I'm back.
I've also been a longtime small-c conservative with an interest in politics but was never actively involved. No more.
Today my slowly simmering blood finally boiled.
The seething rage, hate and threats being directed toward the country I love by people who are now clearly & actively trying to damage it has caused me to sign up for a Conservative party membership.
The gloves are off and now is the time to actively support & campaign the only people with the will and the ability to defend the country I love!
I wonder how many people are thinking the same thing today!
TM should have kept her feelings under wraps; she has demeaned herself (and the UK) by her childish petulance today. This tweet from NS sums it up well "UK needs best possible Brexit deal and has limited leverage, so for PM to poison atmosphere for partisan reasons is deeply irresponsible". Car crash Brexit looms.
We've been told that was already the most likely outcome, and the EU's position was set, indeed their hostile leaking indicated that. May's rhetoric will have had zero impact on any serious negotiations, since only fools would negotiate based off the remarks played for a domestic audience during an election campaign. As the EU are presumably not fools, it will have no impact on their position, therefore it cannot be a big deal.
There's a real danger that she boxes herself and the EU into a situation where both us and them can't make a deal because it would involve losing too much politically.
The EUs ever increasing demands show that we are not the only ones playing that game.
The clear desire to punish the U.K. Is there to see. I think now everything is on the table. With the ultimate nuclear option of breaking NATO.
Because we want to damage US interests even more heavily into the bargain?
Looks like the Telegraph online are comparing the €100bn demand to the Treaty of Versailles...
So within in 30 years the UK will be split into two, and 4 countries will effectively occupy a war ravaged UK?
I thought the treaty of Versailles settled the first world war, and Germany's reparations. I am not aware of Germany being either "war ravaged" in the way it was in WW2 or partitioned and occupied.
That's why I said 'within 30 years'
I'm from the school of history that says The Treaty of Versailles effectively caused WWII.
WWI was based on treaties, it is entirely given slightly different circumstances in WWI, we would have been one of the Central powers, whilst the Germans were one of the Allied Powers.
WWII was caused by the German people buying into the stab-in-the-back-myth. "We would have won, but they cheated".
Versailles didn't help - but the real problem was that the Germans didn't believe they had really lost the war, so it was unfair.
We've been told that was already the most likely outcome, and the EU's position was set, indeed their hostile leaking indicated that. May's rhetoric will have had zero impact on any serious negotiations, since only fools would negotiate based off the remarks played for a domestic audience during an election campaign. As the EU are presumably not fools, it will have no impact on their position, therefore it cannot be a big deal.
The worrying thing about her remarks is that they show how she intends to approach Brexit politically - by sabre rattling and blaming the EU for everything that doesn't go her way. She could have, like some of her colleagues, laughed off the dinner leaks in public, had stern words in private and played off Juncker and the hardliners against other figures' desire for a deal. Colour me surprised, a politician has leaked conversations with the aim making themselves look good and justifying their position. It's what they do.
There's a real danger that she boxes herself and the EU into a situation where both us and them can't make a deal because it would involve losing too much politically. May because you can't put the jingoism genie back in the bottle - once you've set yourself up as the great protector of the nation against perfidious foreigners you can't compromise - or you put yourself on the wrong side of nationalism. The EU because it can't be seen to give in and undermine its rules at the behest of a member that's treated it with ill concealed hostility and those within the EU who were initially willing to accept a more beneficial deal are forced into the arms of the hardliners.
So far, our negotiations resemble the prisoner's dilemma, marching towards a very bad outcome for everyone due to the desire or each party to gain the jump on an adversary.
Yes, prior to today (well, yesterday since midnight) it was clear enough that the eurocrats' negotiating priority was their political motive of doing their utmost to inflict pain on the UK for political motivations of ensuring that Brexit was seen to fail (regardless of the likelihood that EU citizens will suffer far more from the loss of this key net export market and the cost of them of making up the UK's lost contributions when we walk away.
What's now clear though is that May's negotiating priority is similarly a political one and she is quite happy to escalate things for domestic political point scoring even though it makes the prospects of a managed Brexit far worse. You are right to point out the difficulty of rowing back from such positions once taken.
So, it's a win-win situation politically for both parties if Brexit is an utter failure economically for their respective country and ever-closer-union.
It's dizzying to consider how much UK politics has changed in the space of just 10 years, when Labour were thinking about holding an early election at which they were confident of winning a fourth successive victory.
Why I think the polls are still underestimating the Tory lead. From tonight's YouGov poll in The Times
When asked to choose who would make the better prime minister, 49 per cent said Mrs May and 21 per cent said Mr Corbyn. Six per cent of Labour voters would prefer Mrs May along with 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 61 per cent of Ukip voters.
Fifty-three per cent of people who voted Ukip in 2015 said they would vote for the Conservatives this time.
People were asked to nominate, unprompted, any Conservative or Labour campaign slogans they had heard in this election and 15 per cent replied “strong and stable”, Mrs May’s mantra, which she used 12 times on Sunday morning TV interviews. The other Tory slogan, “coalition of chaos” showed less sign of success and was chosen by just 2 per cent of voters, with Labour’s “many not the few” also chosen by 2 per cent.
More voters thought Labour had lots of policies compared with the Tories, but Labour’s policies were seen as far less well thought-through.
Shows how little attention the average person pays to politics and the GE campaign.
Those slogans need to be said far more - "Coalition of chaos" should be mandatory for every interview with May or a Cabinet Minister.
The other thing this shows is how difficult it will be to substantially move the polls - because whatever anyone says, very few people will be listening. TV debates are the only big opportunities and May has neutralised them.
The only big risks left for May are now abandoning the pensions triple lock and the CPS announcement.
If I were her, I would ensure she has something positive for pensioners when she abandons the triple lock, eg "Triple lock stays until 2020 as previously promised then move to a double lock which will be more sustainable and therefore give pensioners more security long term" - ie keep on the front foot.
Not sure about the CPS - best bet would be to delay it until post GE - could she attempt to do that on grounds it might influence the campaign?
Why I think the polls are still underestimating the Tory lead. From tonight's YouGov poll in The Times
When asked to choose who would make the better prime minister, 49 per cent said Mrs May and 21 per cent said Mr Corbyn. Six per cent of Labour voters would prefer Mrs May along with 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 61 per cent of Ukip voters.
Fifty-three per cent of people who voted Ukip in 2015 said they would vote for the Conservatives this time.
People were asked to nominate, unprompted, any Conservative or Labour campaign slogans they had heard in this election and 15 per cent replied “strong and stable”, Mrs May’s mantra, which she used 12 times on Sunday morning TV interviews. The other Tory slogan, “coalition of chaos” showed less sign of success and was chosen by just 2 per cent of voters, with Labour’s “many not the few” also chosen by 2 per cent.
More voters thought Labour had lots of policies compared with the Tories, but Labour’s policies were seen as far less well thought-through.
Shows how little attention the average person pays to politics and the GE campaign.
Those slogans need to be said far more - "Coalition of chaos" should be mandatory for every interview with May or a Cabinet Minister.
The other thing this shows is how difficult it will be to substantially move the polls - because whatever anyone says, very few people will be listening. TV debates are the only big opportunities and May has neutralised them.
The only big risks left for May are now abandoning the pensions triple lock and the CPS announcement.
If I were her, I would ensure she has something positive for pensioners when she abandons the triple lock, eg "Triple lock stays until 2020 as previously promised then move to a double lock which will be more sustainable and therefore give pensioners more security long term" - ie keep on the front foot.
Not sure about the CPS - best bet would be to delay it until post GE - could she attempt to do that on grounds it might influence the campaign?
The point about repetition is correct. Much that the media and us political nerds think omg not again, what a robot, the public don't see it like that. New labour were brilliant at this kind of messaging not just during GE but week to week.
Why I think the polls are still underestimating the Tory lead. From tonight's YouGov poll in The Times
When asked to choose who would make the better prime minister, 49 per cent said Mrs May and 21 per cent said Mr Corbyn. Six per cent of Labour voters would prefer Mrs May along with 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 61 per cent of Ukip voters.
Fifty-three per cent of people who voted Ukip in 2015 said they would vote for the Conservatives this time.
People were asked to nominate, unprompted, any Conservative or Labour campaign slogans they had heard in this election and 15 per cent replied “strong and stable”, Mrs May’s mantra, which she used 12 times on Sunday morning TV interviews. The other Tory slogan, “coalition of chaos” showed less sign of success and was chosen by just 2 per cent of voters, with Labour’s “many not the few” also chosen by 2 per cent.
More voters thought Labour had lots of policies compared with the Tories, but Labour’s policies were seen as far less well thought-through.
Speculation amongst Buckingham Palace staff was rampant last night as the Queen’s most senior aides called her entire household to an emergency meeting today.
Servants from royal residences across the country have been ordered to London and will be addressed this morning by the Lord Chamberlain, the most senior officer of the Royal Household, as well as Her Majesty’s right-hand man, Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt.
Even her longest serving staff were left in the dark about why the meeting was being called but multiple sources said it was ‘highly unusual’ and had sparked fevered talk about an imminent announcement concerning the monarch or her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.
She was alive at 4pm when Theresa May went to see her - if it was London Bridge then surely it would be announced directly rather than in a way that led to speculation.
Can't be abdication as she wouldn't do that during a GE campaign.
Also, hasn't she said she would never abdicate? I would have thought if anything it will be Philllllllliiiiiiiiiipppppp isn't well enough to really carry out many duties anymore.
She was alive at 4pm when Theresa May went to see her - if it was London Bridge then surely it would be announced directly rather than in a way that led to speculation.
Exactly. It might be something about the DoE (Forth Bridge) - tho he was out at Lords a few days ago. If it was London Bridge the protocol is well established.
"enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight."
Must ensure timely death to coincidence with the Times print run....
Can't be abdication as she wouldn't do that during a GE campaign.
Also, hasn't she said she would never abdicate? I would have thought if anything it will be Philllllllliiiiiiiiiipppppp isn't well enough to really carry out many duties anymore.
Agreed.
She has said she wouldn't abdicate - but I wouldn't rule it out completely if she got to near 100 and wasn't well enough to do any duties (or even appear in public) then it wouldn't be sensible to carry on - though I guess in that situation Prince Charles might just become Prince Regent - ie Charles wouldn't be King but he would carry out all the Queen's duties.
"enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight."
Must ensure timely death to coincidence with the Times print run....
One upside to the 24h news cycle - Liz won't be bumped off to meet a print deadline!
Looking at the newspaper headlines the only one that seems ott with talk of 'war on Europe' is ..... the GUARDIAN! We await the condemnations of the usual suspects.
Looking at the newspaper headlines the only one that seems ott with talk of 'war on Europe' is ..... the GUARDIAN! We await the condemnations of the usual suspects.
They were most upset yesterday when they discovered the UK government wants to give EU nationals the same rights as British citizens
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Because people don't know the protocol?
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
When the tables come out - check London - I think the previous samples have been a bit questionable.
Carlotta, do you never sleep ?
Of course! Just not at the same time as most people who post here!
By choice, or that's how it is ? I came home last night at about 8 and went to bed [ not intending to sleep ] but I woke up half an hour back, refreshed.
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Because people don't know the protocol?
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
Can't be abdication as she wouldn't do that during a GE campaign.
Also, hasn't she said she would never abdicate? I would have thought if anything it will be Philllllllliiiiiiiiiipppppp isn't well enough to really carry out many duties anymore.
Agreed.
She has said she wouldn't abdicate - but I wouldn't rule it out completely if she got to near 100 and wasn't well enough to do any duties (or even appear in public) then it wouldn't be sensible to carry on - though I guess in that situation Prince Charles might just become Prince Regent - ie Charles wouldn't be King but he would carry out all the Queen's duties.
What duties except things relating to Parliament are not already delegated at times?
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Because people don't know the protocol?
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
Elections need to be about character not policies - you can never predicte the decisions they will face
He clearly believes gay sex (although differentiating between that and homosexuality sexuality is classic Anglican sophistry @foxinsox ) is wrong.
That, for me, makes him toxic
Would you therefore refuse ever to vote for a devout Muslim?
That's a loaded way of presenting the question. Someone's specific religion has nothing to do with it. For instance, in principle, I wouldn't have a problem voting for Sadiq Khan*
I wouldn't vote for anyone who personally believed that a significant proportion of the population were sinning because of their sexual preferences. It doesn't matter whether they were Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Pastafarian.
I wouldn't vote for an avowed racist either, or for someone who believe that women should have a lesser status in society.
* Although I think he's a slimy git, so wouldn't vote for him on that basis
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Because people don't know the protocol?
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
Entry for Price Philip in Wikipedia This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Entry for Price Philip in Wikipedia This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Do you know who is in charge of this kind of "protection"?
Entry for Price Philip in Wikipedia This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Entry for Price Philip in Wikipedia This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Do you know who is in charge of this kind of "protection"?
Entry for Price Philip in Wikipedia This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
Do you know who is in charge of this kind of "protection"?
One of many WP Admins. If you hunt about, everything WP does is in the public arena and there will be a discussion/proposal somewhere on one of the admin sites. Without looking, my guess is that this has been done to avoid speculation (OR in WP speak) being put onto the page and provoking a media storm.
Elections need to be about character not policies - you can never predicte the decisions they will face
He clearly believes gay sex (although differentiating between that and homosexuality sexuality is classic Anglican sophistry @foxinsox ) is wrong.
That, for me, makes him toxic
Would you therefore refuse ever to vote for a devout Muslim?
That's a loaded way of presenting the question. Someone's specific religion has nothing to do with it. For instance, in principle, I wouldn't have a problem voting for Sadiq Khan*
I wouldn't vote for anyone who personally believed that a significant proportion of the population were sinning because of their sexual preferences. It doesn't matter whether they were Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Pastafarian.
I wouldn't vote for an avowed racist either, or for someone who believe that women should have a lesser status in society.
* Although I think he's a slimy git, so wouldn't vote for him on that basis
He may be a slimy git, but at least he cancelled the Garden Bridge. That's an indication he has a more sound judgement on the use of public money than you do.
By the way, you might want to read Hodge's fairly damning report in the project. You may note many of the criticisms I, and others, made about it, and you roundly denied:
Why would that sort of rumour allowed to start ? These are modern times. I am sure they have protocol but any announcement should be made within a couple of hours.
Because people don't know the protocol?
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
What're PB's procedures when the sad event occurs? A black banner across the top of the page? Has OGH prepared a page about how betting has changed and liberalised over her long reign? Will a funeral march play in the background after you load the site?
If it does happen, I think the mods might have to be on their toes ...
Brown got 29% and Miliband 30%. If Corbyn comes out with 28% (OK 27% adjusting for NI) then the case for him staying, in the eyes of his supporters, will there to be made....
Brown got 29.7% - Milliband 31.2%!
29.0 and 30.4%
Those are UK figures you muffet - not the GB fiures provided by pollsters! Such ignorance!
Some things never change on PB, lol.
My adjusting the 28% to 27% so that it is comparable being just a lucky accident....
Calm down, it is just the start of a process where HM the Q instructs first her staff, and later all of us, not to vote for that beastly Mr. Corbyn......
Regarding WP, edits were made asserting that Prince Philip had died, based on rumours circulating on the internet. A request was made to protect the page from future edits and this will be in place until tomorrow, or until an admin unlocks the page.
Elections need to be about character not policies - you can never predicte the decisions they will face
He clearly believes gay sex (although differentiating between that and homosexuality sexuality is classic Anglican sophistry @foxinsox ) is wrong.
That, for me, makes him toxic
Would you therefore refuse ever to vote for a devout Muslim?
That's a loaded way of presenting the question. Someone's specific religion has nothing to do with it. For instance, in principle, I wouldn't have a problem voting for Sadiq Khan*
I wouldn't vote for anyone who personally believed that a significant proportion of the population were sinning because of their sexual preferences. It doesn't matter whether they were Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Pastafarian.
I wouldn't vote for an avowed racist either, or for someone who believe that women should have a lesser status in society.
* Although I think he's a slimy git, so wouldn't vote for him on that basis
He may be a slimy git, but at least he cancelled the Garden Bridge. That's an indication he has a more sound judgement on the use of public money than you do.
By the way, you might want to read Hodge's fairly damning report in the project. You may note many of the criticisms I, and others, made about it, and you roundly denied:
You really seem to have a bug in your bonnet about this. Probably because about the cycling.
My office is within 50 yards of one end of the Bridge. It would have helped with the economic regeneration of a neglected part of central London. That's all I really care about.
I'm really not fixated on things.
But just bear in mind that Hodges report was entirely designed to achieve a political outcome
I'm a longtime PB reader, and was an occasional poster (back in the disqus days!), and now I'm back.
I've also been a longtime small-c conservative with an interest in politics but was never actively involved. No more.
Today my slowly simmering blood finally boiled.
The seething rage, hate and threats being directed toward the country I love by people who are now clearly & actively trying to damage it has caused me to sign up for a Conservative party membership.
The gloves are off and now is the time to actively support & campaign the only people with the will and the ability to defend the country I love!
I wonder how many people are thinking the same thing today!
TM should have kept her feelings under wraps; she has demeaned herself (and the UK) by her childish petulance today. This tweet from NS sums it up well "UK needs best possible Brexit deal and has limited leverage, so for PM to poison atmosphere for partisan reasons is deeply irresponsible". Car crash Brexit looms.
I see , so its allright for Junker to throw his toys out of the pram and "leak" confidential discussions of which there is zero proof, but when the UK reacts and says its not happy with the way the EUI is behaving, "its poisoning the atmosphere".. LOL
Comments
Figures from the Podcast in this thread (Ipsos Mori, Phone, 3rd May)
Con 49 (+6)
Lab 26 (-4)
LD 13 (NC)
UKIP 4 (-2)
Grn 1 (-3)
======================
Panelbase
Con 47%
Lab 30%
LD 10%
UKIP 5%
======================
Kantar poll
Con 48% (+2)
Lab 24% (-)
LD 11% (-)
UKIP 7% (-1)
======================
Times YouGov poll
Con 48 (+4)
Lab 29 (-2)
LD 10 (-1)
UKIP 5 (-1)
======================
Average of all 4 (just a bit of fun)
Con 48.0
Lab 27.3
LD 11
UKIP 5.25
Baxtered > Conservative majority of 166
Also, the MOE quoted of +-3 is for a randomly conducted sample of around 1,000. But sampling in polls isn't random, rather it's weighted to correct for the effects of randomness as well as problems with constructing the sample by very strictly weighting to match the required numbers in each weighting group and groups within groups. So allowing for this the MOE from the remaining random sampling effects in any single poll is well below the +-3 routinely quoted by those who don't understand the implications of different sampling methods.
The problem with polls is instead structural bias, that is whether they are aiming off target in one direction consistently due to the way they are constructed. The house effects of different pollsters account for a lot of the quoted spread. But in reality that spread can also be due to underlying movement and there seems to have been a perceptible uplift in Labour polling in the past week or so.
Certainly, they have lost a lot of big beasts, but some are re-standing, it will take a bit of time to rebuild, and it's not like the Labour or Tory front benches are overflowing with beasts either.
I'll give you the gay sex issue - I was disappointed to see Farron stalling over it, it was clear the issue was gay sex not being gay, and it took too long to correct that.
Anyway, on why they aren't doing so well, I suspect it's because the election so far has seemed to be a 'Corbyn referendum', as suggested by @rottenborough , rather than a 'brexit election'.
That said, assuming we keep Nukes, I think we will be fine after invading Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDITJ-Xk3Zc
To this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQHpFKZCWdw
When asked to choose who would make the better prime minister, 49 per cent said Mrs May and 21 per cent said Mr Corbyn. Six per cent of Labour voters would prefer Mrs May along with 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 61 per cent of Ukip voters.
Fifty-three per cent of people who voted Ukip in 2015 said they would vote for the Conservatives this time.
People were asked to nominate, unprompted, any Conservative or Labour campaign slogans they had heard in this election and 15 per cent replied “strong and stable”, Mrs May’s mantra, which she used 12 times on Sunday morning TV interviews. The other Tory slogan, “coalition of chaos” showed less sign of success and was chosen by just 2 per cent of voters, with Labour’s “many not the few” also chosen by 2 per cent.
More voters thought Labour had lots of policies compared with the Tories, but Labour’s policies were seen as far less well thought-through.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-s-mantra-works-wonders-with-voters-gctcx8rsz
What she mostly said is that the dreaded commission is trying to make this fail, I know the leaders are not.
It should be noted that the commission isn't supposed to be the negotiator but Barnier on behalf of the 27. In that sense she is railing against the commission and pointing out to the 27 that it is acting against their interests which is true, Juncker doesn't want a deal as that suits him best. It doesn't suit the 27, or at least most of them.
Likely to be the next MP for Scunthorpe.
https://twitter.com/HollyMumbyCroft
Naughty podcast! It implies that it was today (see beginning of the podcast) - or maybe unfortunate phraseology used...or something.
For those who just spent 2 and half hours watching an exhausting French catfight, and need a mood whiplash - this clip of Jimmy Kimmel talking about his son's heart surgery is worth watching. Very raw and emotional, regardless of your political views on Obamacare.
Couldn't happen to a more appropriate area/
I have switched my voting share betting from 35/40 and 40/45 to 30/35 and 35/40.
Versailles didn't help - but the real problem was that the Germans didn't believe they had really lost the war, so it was unfair.
What's now clear though is that May's negotiating priority is similarly a political one and she is quite happy to escalate things for domestic political point scoring even though it makes the prospects of a managed Brexit far worse. You are right to point out the difficulty of rowing back from such positions once taken.
So, it's a win-win situation politically for both parties if Brexit is an utter failure economically for their respective country and ever-closer-union.
Those slogans need to be said far more - "Coalition of chaos" should be mandatory for every interview with May or a Cabinet Minister.
The other thing this shows is how difficult it will be to substantially move the polls - because whatever anyone says, very few people will be listening. TV debates are the only big opportunities and May has neutralised them.
The only big risks left for May are now abandoning the pensions triple lock and the CPS announcement.
If I were her, I would ensure she has something positive for pensioners when she abandons the triple lock, eg "Triple lock stays until 2020 as previously promised then move to a double lock which will be more sustainable and therefore give pensioners more security long term" - ie keep on the front foot.
Not sure about the CPS - best bet would be to delay it until post GE - could she attempt to do that on grounds it might influence the campaign?
Servants from royal residences across the country have been ordered to London and will be addressed this morning by the Lord Chamberlain, the most senior officer of the Royal Household, as well as Her Majesty’s right-hand man, Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt.
Even her longest serving staff were left in the dark about why the meeting was being called but multiple sources said it was ‘highly unusual’ and had sparked fevered talk about an imminent announcement concerning the monarch or her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471696/Royal-staff-called-London-emergency-meeting.html#ixzz4g4irr6Oz
GE is still 5 weeks away - funeral etc would presumably all happen within say two weeks.
At most I think GE would only be put back say one or two weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
Exactly. It might be something about the DoE (Forth Bridge) - tho he was out at Lords a few days ago. If it was London Bridge the protocol is well established.
Must ensure timely death to coincidence with the Times print run....
She has said she wouldn't abdicate - but I wouldn't rule it out completely if she got to near 100 and wasn't well enough to do any duties (or even appear in public) then it wouldn't be sensible to carry on - though I guess in that situation Prince Charles might just become Prince Regent - ie Charles wouldn't be King but he would carry out all the Queen's duties.
Both 'Buckingham Palace and 'Prince Philip' are trending on twitter.....
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/05/buckingham-palace-denies-reports-prince-philip-queen-elizabeth-have-died.html
“If you ever hear Haunted Dancehall (Nursery Remix) by Sabres of Paradise on daytime Radio 1, turn the TV on,” wrote Chris Price, a BBC radio producer, for the Huffington Post in 2011. “Something terrible has just happened.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
I wouldn't vote for anyone who personally believed that a significant proportion of the population were sinning because of their sexual preferences. It doesn't matter whether they were Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew or Pastafarian.
I wouldn't vote for an avowed racist either, or for someone who believe that women should have a lesser status in society.
* Although I think he's a slimy git, so wouldn't vote for him on that basis
A small leg of lamb has gone missing from the pantry & she's want's to know who took it?
(Comment in a downmarket tabloid)
This article is currently protected from editing until May 5, 2017.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
[Although French media sources reporting something different]
By the way, you might want to read Hodge's fairly damning report in the project. You may note many of the criticisms I, and others, made about it, and you roundly denied:
https://www.london.gov.uk/independent-review-garden-bridge-project
If it does happen, I think the mods might have to be on their toes ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/the-six-brexit-traps-that-will-defeat-theresa-may?CMP=share_btn_link
1) Look up candidates on website.
2) Realise that of the 4 candidates, only the Green candidate actually lives in this (very safe Labour) ward.
3) Decide to vote Green.
My office is within 50 yards of one end of the Bridge. It would have helped with the economic regeneration of a neglected part of central London. That's all I really care about.
I'm really not fixated on things.
But just bear in mind that Hodges report was entirely designed to achieve a political outcome
Although the others wouldn't surprise me. I said at Christmas that we seemed to be being softened up for an announcement.