Not a huge surprise given education is a key indicator of identity.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. In this country it's an indicator of age.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
I made the point about this on Saturday afternoon but it got lost in the triumphalism.
There are two political societies in existence now and to understand how that is working I illustrated two Surrey County Council results from last Thursday:
First, Sunbury Common in Spelthorne, an area which voted for LEAVE last year. The sitting LD County Councillor was seeking his fifth term and had survived fairly comfortably in 2013:
The numbers then were:
LD 40% UKIP 25%, CON 21%, LAB 14%
Last Thursday's figures:
CON 44%, LD 33%, LAB 13%, UKIP 8%, GRN 3%
The real extent of the Conservative victory in LEAVE areas was not only the party's ability to hoover up almost all the UKIP vote but to get more LEAVE voters and especially those who had formally voted for other parties over to the Conservative side. Those who had supported the local LD in 2013 and had gone on to vote LEAVE in 2016 could no longer support a pro-REMAIN candidate irrespective of local record.
By contrast, here's Godalming North in Waverley, an area which voted REMAIN. This division was held by the Conservatives whose County Councillor was also bidding for a fifth term. The 2013 figures were:
CON 44%, LD 21%, UKIP 19%, LAB 16%
Last Thursday's numbers:
LD 46%, CON 40%, UKIP 6%,
Now you might say "no Labour candidate, all the Labour vote went to the LDs" and that might or might not be true (progressive alliance fans, take note) but the CON-UKIP vote in 2013 was 63% to the Lab-LD 37% so it shouldn't have made any difference and yet the seat was lost.
The Conservative vote share fell and the UKIP vote disappeared. Well, perhaps not. I suspect what we saw were three related but separate things:
1) The bulk of the Labour vote went to the LDs. 2) The bulk of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives. 3) The Conservative vote fell because a number of pro-REMAIN supporters, who were formerly Conservative, deserted to the pro-REMAIN LDs.
What does this mean for the GE ?
Thanks @stodge, worth saying that although there wasn't a Labour candidate in Godalming North this time, there was a Green candidate that got 8.4% of the vote.
A centre right PM like Philippe and Idrac would show Macron means business with his economic reforms. As Muppets former spokesman Philippe could also be used by Macron to head off the Juppe threat given Juppe is his likely opponent in 2022
He will be 76 by then. Even in the current gerontocracy that is surely too old to be elected.
Not in France, Mitterand and Chirac were both in that age bracket and ran several times before winning though I expect Macron would beat him anyway
My modelling posted yesterday suggests that the left's alternative plan for getting their MPs to 15% of the parliamentary party is already in progress.
Nick is of course wrong, though he has some good points along the way, particularly about giving members something to vote *for*.
But:
1. Political parties, particularly big ones, are about governing. Indulging members' emotional spasms is selfish, childish and a betrayal of those the party is meant to represent, if it is indeed meant to represent those beyond its membership.
2. A leader who has the active support of less than 15% of their parliamentary party is in an impossible position from Day 1. Corbyn has more than adequately demonstrated this but so did Hague and IDS, both of who polled poorly in their respective first rounds (which is the true test of positive support). The root problem is the disconnect between the membership and PLP and until that's resolved - by a change of mind or of personnel - there'll always be a problem. Even so, imposing a leader on a PLP that doesn't respect him or her is bound to end badly, not least because there's likely to be good reason why political professionals don't respect someone and the public will see it soon enough.
On the odd occasion I visit the Guardian website, the writers seem to be dead against 'populism' which came as a surprise to me. I assumed populism was derived from popular and meant the will of the majority. The opposite would be elitism which seems to be what the Guardian is in favour of. Have I missed something?
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
Outside of Edinburgh Tory gains will mainly come in rural areas where unionist tactical voting will be higher
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
Well don't keep me is suspense, what is it?
SNP on 53%
Labour on 51 in London, Tories on 54 in Northern England.
Phone polls.
All of those subsamples look ridiculous. That doesn't mean the poll overall isn't of much value but I'd exercise caution.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. e.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
It shouldn't be either. The focus should be on understanding the new fracture lines that are opening up in politics, replacing those that essentially grounded political preference in what job you had. The issue of education (and age) was first identified by a piece of academic, not political, analysis, that correlated each variable separately with the Brexit vote and concluded that age and education as independent variables explained (in stastitical terms) the overwhelming proportion of the variation in referendum result between UK council areas. In particular it concluded that there was no special "London effect" - as had previously been postulated - London's Remain vote reflected its younger and more educated population, and once allowed for a Londoner was no less likely to vote Leave than people living anywhere else. There was however a large "Scotland effect", and a smaller "Welsh effect" (disguised by its older less educated population), tending toward Remain, that emerged from the analysis.
I'd say that the above is interesting and helpful to understand where politics is going.
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
I made the point about this on Saturday afternoon but it got lost in the triumphalism.
There are two political societies in existence now and to understand how that is working I illustrated two Surrey County Council results from last Thursday:
First, Sunbury Common in Spelthorne, an area which voted for LEAVE last year. The sitting LD County Councillor was seeking his fifth term and had survived fairly comfortably in 2013:
The numbers then were:
LD 40% UKIP 25%, CON 21%, LAB 14%
Last Thursday's figures:
CON 44%, LD 33%, LAB 13%, UKIP 8%, GRN 3%
The real extent of the Conservative victory in LEAVE areas was not only the party's ability to hoover up almost all the UKIP vote but to get more LEAVE voters and especially those who had formally voted for other parties over to the Conservative side. Those who had supported the local LD in 2013 and had gone on to vote LEAVE in 2016 could no longer support a pro-REMAIN candidate irrespective of local record.
By contrast, here's Godalming North in Waverley, an area which voted REMAIN. This division was held by the Conservatives whose County Councillor was also bidding for a fifth term. The 2013 figures were:
CON 44%, LD 21%, UKIP 19%, LAB 16%
Last Thursday's numbers:
LD 46%, CON 40%, UKIP 6%,
Now you might say "no Labour candidate, all the Labour vote went to the LDs" and that might or might not be true (progressive alliance fans, take note) but the CON-UKIP vote in 2013 was 63% to the Lab-LD 37% so it shouldn't have made any difference and yet the seat was lost.
The Conservative vote share fell and the UKIP vote disappeared. Well, perhaps not. I suspect what we saw were three related but separate things:
1) The bulk of the Labour vote went to the LDs. 2) The bulk of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives. 3) The Conservative vote fell because a number of pro-REMAIN supporters, who were formerly Conservative, deserted to the pro-REMAIN LDs.
What does this mean for the GE ?
It means that one can't use the uniform national vote swing to estimate numbers of seats gained or lost. I think that the LibDems will do reasonably well in vote share but may not do well in seat share since their main opponents' vote share is also rising. However Brexit means that different constituencies will behave differently which makes forecasting seats tricky.
Burnham to donate 15% of his Mayoral salary to a new homelessness fund he is setting up in Greater Manchester
To be cynical, an amount that costs him much less that it appears due to it getting his income below the level at which the personal allowance clawback begins.
The USA figures are on completing High School, so also not demonstrating an age/education correlation.
Age does confound a bit in Brexit voting, but is not the sole explanation. Look at the breakdown in education for Brexit voting by age bands for example.
I am shocked and amazed that no one has revealed the Scotch subsample from this new Survation poll. The person who reposted the Mcsubsample from a Yougov at least three times last week is failing miserably in their duties.
Well don't keep me is suspense, what is it?
SNP on 53%
Labour on 51 in London, Tories on 54 in Northern England.
Phone polls.
All of those subsamples look ridiculous. That doesn't mean the poll overall isn't of much value but I'd exercise caution.
Thanks @stodge, worth saying that although there wasn't a Labour candidate in Godalming North this time, there was a Green candidate that got 8.4% of the vote.
Indeed, that emphasises the nature of the LD performance and the ability of the pro-REMAIN party candidate to pick up support from pro-REMAIN voters who had previously backed other parties.
It's quite possible parts of the 2013 LD and Labour vote went to the Green candidate.
Using this as a GE guide isn't helpful as you have to consider the number of candidates and there are also thickets of independent/residents candidates (Farnham, Epsom, Hersham, Walton and elsewhere) who had a mixed night it's probably fair to say.
In seat terms, the Conservatives were up a net 3 and UKIP down a net three but otherwise there was no net change though that disguised some churn of seats.
Yes, I'm not saying everything in London is hunky-dory now and we can all relax, but the situation is infinitely better than when I were a lad.
Btw, one poster below suggested that 'Londoners were not very popular in the rest of the country'. Can't say I've noticed that on my travels. I even managed to make it to Newmarket on Saturday without being stoned.
As a fellow citizen of the great metropolis, you noticed any problems?
Burnham to donate 15% of his Mayoral salary to a new homelessness fund he is setting up in Greater Manchester
To be cynical, an amount that costs him much less that it appears due to it getting his income below the level at which the personal allowance clawback begins.
Not a huge surprise given education is a key indicator of identity.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. In this country it's an indicator of age.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
It isn't snobbery, Ishmael.
Most Remainers would be aware that those who voted Leave tended to come from the segments of the population that would be most severely affected by Brexit, and viewed the irony with sympathy as well as sadness.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. e.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
I'd say that the above is interesting and helpful to understand where politics is going.
It certainly seems that class is no longer any kind of indicator of voting intentions - with the party splits essentially identical for ABC1s as for C2DEs. I think this has pretty much come about because the WWC has given up on Labour. Left/Right doesn't seem a useful analytical device any more either. A new political differentiation is emerging. It's hard to describe but is something along the lines of national identity/self governance/expansionary vs collective identity/pooled sovereignty/protectionist. Labour's agony is that half their traditional vote sits on one side and half on the other. The radio 4 News Quiz the other day described the dilemma of constructing a Labour manifesto as like designing a menu for a dinner party where one guest is a hard core vegan and the other guest is a lion.
Not a huge surprise given education is a key indicator of identity.
Macron, Brexit and Trump are all about identity politics - albeit differrrnt identies in each case.
Education is a stronger indicator of intelligence.
Not really. In this country it's an indicator of age.
As far as political correlation is concerned, it would be easy for pollsters to split their data into age cohorts before running the correlation with voting behaviour.
I suspect both of you are right - as a single variable education is a strong proxy for age - but nevertheless more educated young people and more educated older people voted Macron/Clinton/Remain than did less educated people, both young and old.
I think that's correct. Better educated people are more likely to see such politicians as benefitting them; less well educated people see them as working against them.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
A centre right PM like Philippe and Idrac would show Macron means business with his economic reforms. As Muppets former spokesman Philippe could also be used by Macron to head off the Juppe threat given Juppe is his likely opponent in 2022
He will be 76 by then. Even in the current gerontocracy that is surely too old to be elected.
Konrad Adenauer, probably the greatest of all post-War Western leaders, was elected Chancellor of Germany aged 75 and kept going for another 14 years. Undoubtedly an exception ...
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
Outside of Edinburgh Tory gains will mainly come in rural areas where unionist tactical voting will be higher
Do people really think unionist Labour and LibDem voters will back the Tories to beat the SNP? For an election focused on Scotland, perhaps, but in a UK General Election?
Burnham to donate 15% of his Mayoral salary to a new homelessness fund he is setting up in Greater Manchester
To be cynical, an amount that costs him much less that it appears due to it getting his income below the level at which the personal allowance clawback begins.
Why don't you do the same ?
I make my own charitable donations, to those less well off then me in the city where I live.
I think it's fair comment that when the government of which he was a part introduced income tax allowance withdrawal (a 67% income tax) on incomes above £100k, a politician given a £110k salary decides to make a charitable donation to get him under that limit.
Yes, I'm not saying everything in London is hunky-dory now and we can all relax, but the situation is infinitely better than when I were a lad.
Btw, one poster below suggested that 'Londoners were not very popular in the rest of the country'. Can't say I've noticed that on my travels. I even managed to make it to Newmarket on Saturday without being stoned.
As a fellow citizen of the great metropolis, you noticed any problems?
Nope, no problems I don't wear the Pearly King outfit and do a terrible Dick van Dyke impression but then I never did.
Looked a good day at Newmarket - I thought BARNEY ROY was unlucky in the Guineas and SEVENTH HEAVEN could win the Arc if you knew it was going to be quick ground in France at the beginning of October so she won't win the Arc.
More impressed with WINTER - looking forward to her going against GALILEO GOLD in the Sussex (just a thought).
And in another story, it looks as though NASA's going to give the go-ahead for the first SLS rocket flight to be manned, for a slingshot mission around the Moon. This puts them in direct competition with SpaceX's mission to so the same.
It's controversial, as the SLS will not have flown, and the only time a manned spacecraft has flown a maiden mission with people on board was the Shuttle, and they were blooming lucky they didn't lose Colombia and its crew on that mission.
The Remainer fondness for this education/Remaineriness correlation point is puzzling. I am not sure if the principal point is "look at me, I'm a Remainer, I must be highly educated" - in which case the point isn't very interesting, and there are more cogent education-indicators - or "Look how thick the disgusting proles who voted Leave are" - in which case the answers are that snobbery is actually not that attractive, that with universal suffrage even thick disgusting proles get the vote, and that the thicker they are the more lazy and useless the Remain campaign (and the Remainers who couldn't be arsed to campaign at all) must be.
I'd say that the above is interesting and helpful to understand where politics is going.
It certainly seems that class is no longer any kind of indicator of voting intentions - with the party splits essentially identical for ABC1s as for C2DEs. I think this has pretty much come about because the WWC has given up on Labour. Left/Right doesn't seem a useful analytical device any more either. A new political differentiation is emerging. It's hard to describe but is something along the lines of national identity/self governance/expansionary vs collective identity/pooled sovereignty/protectionist. Labour's agony is that half their traditional vote sits on one side and half on the other. The radio 4 News Quiz the other day described the dilemma of constructing a Labour manifesto as like designing a menu for a dinner party where one guest is a hard core vegan and the other guest is a lion.
Yep, when I started canvassing for the LDs over thirty years ago, identifying Tory and Labour voters was easy, since aside from the odd Champagne socialist it was so easy to deduce. That is no longer true.
A lot of posters talk about "London" as if all 70-odd London seats will be different (usually better) for Labour than elsewhere. Whereas I suspect it's really a reflection of age. Inner London is young. But those areas of Outer London where the age profile is close to the UK average (which is most of it, excepting some Boroughs like Redbridge with rising younger Asian populations) will probably have swings against Labour in line with many rUK seats. Which may mean Labour prospects in Outer London are being over-estimated? Whereas in Inner London it depends on how the LibDems do against Labour for the Remain vote.
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
Outside of Edinburgh Tory gains will mainly come in rural areas where unionist tactical voting will be higher
Do people really think unionist Labour and LibDem voters will back the Tories to beat the SNP? For an election focused on Scotland, perhaps, but in a UK General Election?
“Irrespective of the participants at the dinner… [The] fact is that it was a serious mistake that parts of the talks were leaked,” he said.
The EU leader said that he was not responsible for the leak: “I am very good at being self-critical, but this I do not want to be accused for.”
Martin Selmayr, Mr Juncker’s chief of staff, was one of only two other people reportedly present for the talks and was named by the Sunday Times as the source of FAZ’s report.
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
Outside of Edinburgh Tory gains will mainly come in rural areas where unionist tactical voting will be higher
Do people really think unionist Labour and LibDem voters will back the Tories to beat the SNP? For an election focused on Scotland, perhaps, but in a UK General Election?
What good has having 56 SNP MPs done Scotland?
In fact, what impact have they had on anything at all? I can think of only two: deliberately obnoxious behaviour in the Commons chamber, and making the lives of the hated English more difficult when they want to go shopping on a Sunday.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
Amazing how an STV system still doesn't work very well for the Tories in Scotland. They got more votes than the SNP in Edinburgh and Moray and got fewer councillors.
The Ayrshire result stands out for a possible Westminster seat gain.
It's almost like there is anti Tory tactical voting. Of course with STV the Cons didn't get more votes.
I've been trying to make Ayrshire fit for a Con seat gain since constituency odds went u as the Con odds are good but I can't do it in any satisfying way.
Outside of Edinburgh Tory gains will mainly come in rural areas where unionist tactical voting will be higher
Do people really think unionist Labour and LibDem voters will back the Tories to beat the SNP? For an election focused on Scotland, perhaps, but in a UK General Election?
SCON supporters yes - SLAB & SLID anti-SCON at least balance out anti-SNP !
Have a look at some of the results in Surrey. The Lib Dems gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North - both places likely to have a lot of London commuters. The increase in the Lib Dem share of the vote was also higher in Woking and Guildford compared with the rest of the county. Whether the performance of the Lib Dems in these places was good enough to indicate that they'll do particularly well in SW London is hard to say.
I made the point about this on Saturday afternoon but it got lost in the triumphalism.
Do people really think unionist Labour and LibDem voters will back the Tories to beat the SNP? For an election focused on Scotland, perhaps, but in a UK General Election?
Yes.
More on this. The seats in play are where the SNP vote is well under half, so the most plausible non-SNP candidate can go to supporters of other parties and say, do you want us or do you want the SNP? As a rule of thumb, look for SNP vote shares less than 45%, which means a significant third party to squeeze.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
What I mean is that WhatsApp and Facebook would make changes to their corporate structure so that legally they no longer operate in the UK. Then the government would be forced into blocking, which I believe would prove politically unpalatable as pissing off millions of users is something they would want to avoid.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
No, electronic voting is a nonstarter even if crypto is extremely good, there are simply too many other problems to make it secure. You only have to look at the problems we find with hypervisors, trusted execution, side channels, firmware, supply chain interception, tampering, counterfeit parts and the like. I've always been skeptical of electronic voting, knowing what we know now I wouldn't touch it with a barge-poll.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
Anyone who works in IT knows that electronic voting is a really bad idea. Electronic counting of paper ballots is okay, as there is an easy way of auditing them manually afterwards, but relying on machines to register votes is a big no-no.
Yep, when I started canvassing for the LDs over thirty years ago, identifying Tory and Labour voters was easy, since aside from the odd Champagne socialist it was so easy to deduce. That is no longer true.
A lot of posters talk about "London" as if all 70-odd London seats will be different (usually better) for Labour than elsewhere. Whereas I suspect it's really a reflection of age. Inner London is young. But those areas of Outer London where the age profile is close to the UK average (which is most of it, excepting some Boroughs like Redbridge with rising younger Asian populations) will probably have swings against Labour in line with many rUK seats. Which may mean Labour prospects in Outer London are being over-estimated? Whereas in Inner London it depends on how the LibDems do against Labour for the Remain vote.
I'm working on a very straightforward model that plugs in the last election result and then allocates according to the retention and switcher figures from party to party.
If the Greens did well in a constituency, Labour will hold up. If UKIP did well, the Tories will threaten.
I can see Corbyn harvesting many thousands of Green votes in Lewisham, Hackney, Islington, Camberwell etc - and coming under real pressure in Eltham, Erith and Thamesmead, Dagenham and Rainham and so on.
The credibility of the local MP is going to be needed to stem the flow.
Yes, I'm not saying everything in London is hunky-dory now and we can all relax, but the situation is infinitely better than when I were a lad.
Btw, one poster below suggested that 'Londoners were not very popular in the rest of the country'. Can't say I've noticed that on my travels. I even managed to make it to Newmarket on Saturday without being stoned.
As a fellow citizen of the great metropolis, you noticed any problems?
Nope, no problems I don't wear the Pearly King outfit and do a terrible Dick van Dyke impression but then I never did.
Looked a good day at Newmarket - I thought BARNEY ROY was unlucky in the Guineas and SEVENTH HEAVEN could win the Arc if you knew it was going to be quick ground in France at the beginning of October so she won't win the Arc.
More impressed with WINTER - looking forward to her going against GALILEO GOLD in the Sussex (just a thought).
Have we seen the Derby winner yet ?
Tell me about it. I backed Barney. I know he stumbled but I don't think he got the smartest of rides. Newmarket is a difficult course to ride well. You have to be there to appreciate how undaulating it is. The winner got the perfect ride, the rest....well I think you could run the race again and get a very different result.
Winter looked very good. The Derby winner remains unclear, but I bet it is somehere in O'Brien's stables!
Anyone who works in IT knows that electronic voting is a really bad idea. Electronic counting of paper ballots is okay, as there is an easy way of auditing them manually afterwards, but relying on machines to register votes is a big no-no.
One of the things that makes me chuckle is that so many "secure" electronic voting systems produce a paper trail for auditing.
"national identity/self governance/expansionary vs collective identity/pooled sovereignty/protectionist"
That looks very like projection to me.
National identity - English, Scottish
Collective identity - British
Seems to me that the Tories get the English identity vote in England, but the British identity vote in Scotland, for example.
Expansionary v protectionist - I am not sure great swathes of the Tory voting public is sold on the benefits of globalisation and the unfettered affects of the free market (see the new-found Tory fondness for energy price controls, for example); likewise, I am not sure that all Labour voters are keen on restricting the abilities of businesses to hire who they think is best to do the job.
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
He's getting them Paddypoweresque levels of publicity. Should probably give him a couple of hundred quids worth of free bets a week just to keep him going.
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Yeah he's basically stung them for £500 because the hassle and adverse publicity would cost more (although they would appear to have acted a little too late)
He tweeted that Le Pen would win and tweeted that he'd placed the bet. There are a lot of 'mistakes' here if his story is true.
Yep, when I started canvassing for the LDs over thirty years ago, identifying Tory and Labour voters was easy, since aside from the odd Champagne socialist it was so easy to deduce. That is no longer true.
A lot of posters talk about "London" as if all 70-odd London seats will be different (usually better) for Labour than elsewhere. Whereas I suspect it's really a reflection of age. Inner London is young. But those areas of Outer London where the age profile is close to the UK average (which is most of it, excepting some Boroughs like Redbridge with rising younger Asian populations) will probably have swings against Labour in line with many rUK seats. Which may mean Labour prospects in Outer London are being over-estimated? Whereas in Inner London it depends on how the LibDems do against Labour for the Remain vote.
I'm working on a very straightforward model that plugs in the last election result and then allocates according to the retention and switcher figures from party to party.
If the Greens did well in a constituency, Labour will hold up. If UKIP did well, the Tories will threaten.
I can see Corbyn harvesting many thousands of Green votes in Lewisham, Hackney, Islington, Camberwell etc - and coming under real pressure in Eltham, Erith and Thamesmead, Dagenham and Rainham and so on.
The credibility of the local MP is going to be needed to stem the flow.
I did a similar basic model with the YouGov polling of party switchers ahead of Copeland. That gave me a Tory majority of 1,300, so the 2,147 was a slight over-performance by the Tories.
Seems Labour voters are now in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" bind. Stay loyal to the party and keep Corbyn for who knows how much longer - or sit on their hands and get a huge Tory majority but an early start to rebuilding.
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
But Labour, if in power, would also want to ban Whatsapp and iPhones. The security services will always lobby politicians to restrict access to technology like encryption (for years PGP was not allowed outside the US), the job of the politicians is to define where the balance lies between privacy and security.
Thankfully, companies like Apple have come down hard on the side of privacy against the US government, which means an awful lot to the rest of the world's politicians - who wont be up for banning iPhones any time soon.
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
Anyone who works in IT knows that electronic voting is a really bad idea. Electronic counting of paper ballots is okay, as there is an easy way of auditing them manually afterwards, but relying on machines to register votes is a big no-no.
And anyone who takes an interest in politics knows it would be a Holy Grail for the left. Cf. ad lib. postal voting - the fact that it was obvious in advance that that was an open invitation to corruption didn't prevent its introduction, did it?
But Labour, if in power, would also want to ban Whatsapp and iPhones. The security services will always lobby politicians to restrict access to technology like encryption (for years PGP was not allowed outside the US), the job of the politicians is to define where the balance lies between privacy and security.
I'm not sure that a Corbyn led Labour would. That's one of the few areas I might give him some credit.
According to the Telegraph, everyone's favourite European Commission President has described the leaks of the meeting a few weeks ago as a "serious mistake". Well duh...
But Labour, if in power, would also want to ban Whatsapp and iPhones. The security services will always lobby politicians to restrict access to technology like encryption (for years PGP was not allowed outside the US), the job of the politicians is to define where the balance lies between privacy and security.
I'm not sure that a Corbyn led Labour would. That's one of the few areas I might give him some credit.
Depends what the Canary and Morning Star's view on the matter is...
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
Careful, because *if* his kid didn't place the bet, then he's just obtained a refund by being somewhat less than entirely candid (I'm mincing my words as much as I can here) which can have, um, consequences.
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
I'd say this is rather like Chris Huhne's wife's speeding ticket. They can probably prove that the bet came from his phone and could conceivably claim that his subsequent complaint was fraudulent. Whether they do or not is up to @Shadsy and his team, but given the publicity the guy has milked, including selling his story to the Daily Mail, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to make an example out of him.
I see Tories big thing today is price capping, f##king stupid when Ed came out with it, f##king stupid when Kim Jong May came out with it.
File under ideas that will be quietly dropped the other side of the election.
Cameron was a master of that, like telling everyone how he would leave Child Tax Credit alone before the election, and then butchering it in his first budget. The North of England electrification program that got scrapped barely before the balot boxes had been put back in storage. Promising to open up government, then trying to restrict FOI once in office, and my particular favorite, giving workers three days off a year to do volunteer work, which didn't even get as far as the Queen Speech!
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
Careful, because *if* his kid didn't place the bet, then he's just obtained a refund by being somewhat less than entirely candid (I'm mincing my words as much as I can here) which can have, um, consequences.
You contact the bookie *before* the event when you've misplaced a bet ^_~
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
I'd say this is rather like Chris Huhne's wife's speeding ticket. They can probably prove that the bet came from his phone and could conceivably claim that his subsequent complaint was fraudulent. Whether they do or not is up to @Shadsy and his team, but given the publicity the guy has milked, including selling his story to the Daily Mail, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to make an example out of him.
Can't believe they've refunded him! I had a winning 4/1 bet w Betfred in November which they tried to pay at 3/1. I refused to accept it, sent it to IBAS, and six months later.... nothing!!
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
Anyone who works in IT knows that electronic voting is a really bad idea. Electronic counting of paper ballots is okay, as there is an easy way of auditing them manually afterwards, but relying on machines to register votes is a big no-no.
And anyone who takes an interest in politics knows it would be a Holy Grail for the left. Cf. ad lib. postal voting - the fact that it was obvious in advance that that was an open invitation to corruption didn't prevent its introduction, did it?
Yes, postal voting should need to be applied for, for each election, and I say that as someone who lives abroad. It's really not too much trouble to fill in a form and send it off.
Forcing this on WhatsApp etc would just drive people to open source messaging anyway. Signal is entirely robust at present.
It's the ultimate King Canute scenario.
I don't think WhatsApp would comply, if they gave in in the UK they'd end up being forced into similar compromises elsewhere. They would destroy a major feature of their service. They might well pull out of the UK, officially at least.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
How do you "pull out of the UK" when you exist only in cyberspace? Seems a rather tory bit of thinking.
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
Anyone who works in IT knows that electronic voting is a really bad idea. Electronic counting of paper ballots is okay, as there is an easy way of auditing them manually afterwards, but relying on machines to register votes is a big no-no.
And anyone who takes an interest in politics knows it would be a Holy Grail for the left. Cf. ad lib. postal voting - the fact that it was obvious in advance that that was an open invitation to corruption didn't prevent its introduction, did it?
Yes, postal voting should need to be applied for, for each election, and I say that as someone who lives abroad. It's really not too much trouble to fill in a form and send it off.
I have to re-register each year. Perhaps it varies by council?
Ladbrokes don't want to lose his custom. Losing long term account.
Do you think they want his custom? In any business you have customers that are more bother than they are worth. In any case protecting children from gambling is a sensitive issue that this man is trading on.
Does anyone seriously believe his kid actually placed the bet ?
I don't see any reason to believe him. But it doesn't mean he isn't trouble for Ladbrokes.
According to the Telegraph, everyone's favourite European Commission President has described the leaks of the meeting a few weeks ago as a "serious mistake". Well duh...
It's very telling, coupled with Verhofstadts "cool heads and common sense" piece in the FT, yesterday, it tells us that:
(1) The EU are also very worried about the consequences of a "no deal" (2) They have realised they can't just browbeat May into making concessions, as they did with Cameron, and they're now no longer 100% sure she won't walk away
Capping prices is a stupid policy. Not as stupid as freezing them but still bloody daft.
Add competition, and let that drive down prices instead of handing down edicts from on high.
Good politics, bad policy. Classic May.
It's the other way round. The policy itself is fine - the energy companies are using the standard variable tariffs as a way of ripping off less-savvy customers, because competition almost by definition isn't working in that part of the market - but the presentation is awful. Greg Clark was very poor this morning in trying to present the policy, and making a big splash of something which sounds suspiciously similar to something Ed Miliband proposed is a major gaffe.
Not that it will make much difference in the overall scheme of things, mind.
Comments
But:
1. Political parties, particularly big ones, are about governing. Indulging members' emotional spasms is selfish, childish and a betrayal of those the party is meant to represent, if it is indeed meant to represent those beyond its membership.
2. A leader who has the active support of less than 15% of their parliamentary party is in an impossible position from Day 1. Corbyn has more than adequately demonstrated this but so did Hague and IDS, both of who polled poorly in their respective first rounds (which is the true test of positive support). The root problem is the disconnect between the membership and PLP and until that's resolved - by a change of mind or of personnel - there'll always be a problem. Even so, imposing a leader on a PLP that doesn't respect him or her is bound to end badly, not least because there's likely to be good reason why political professionals don't respect someone and the public will see it soon enough.
I'd say that the above is interesting and helpful to understand where politics is going.
I think that the LibDems will do reasonably well in vote share but may not do well in seat share since their main opponents' vote share is also rising. However Brexit means that different constituencies will behave differently which makes forecasting seats tricky.
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/861494792706019328
The USA figures are on completing High School, so also not demonstrating an age/education correlation.
Age does confound a bit in Brexit voting, but is not the sole explanation. Look at the breakdown in education for Brexit voting by age bands for example.
It's quite possible parts of the 2013 LD and Labour vote went to the Green candidate.
Across Surrey, the numbers were as follows:
CON 48% (+8)
LD 23% (+7)
LAB 9% (-2)
UKIP 5% (-17)
Using this as a GE guide isn't helpful as you have to consider the number of candidates and there are also thickets of independent/residents candidates (Farnham, Epsom, Hersham, Walton and elsewhere) who had a mixed night it's probably fair to say.
In seat terms, the Conservatives were up a net 3 and UKIP down a net three but otherwise there was no net change though that disguised some churn of seats.
Both him and Street will make good leaders for Greater Manchester, and Greater Coventry.
Thanks Stodge.
Yes, I'm not saying everything in London is hunky-dory now and we can all relax, but the situation is infinitely better than when I were a lad.
Btw, one poster below suggested that 'Londoners were not very popular in the rest of the country'. Can't say I've noticed that on my travels. I even managed to make it to Newmarket on Saturday without being stoned.
As a fellow citizen of the great metropolis, you noticed any problems?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-39852694/trump-muslim-ban-plan-erased-from-website
Most Remainers would be aware that those who voted Leave tended to come from the segments of the population that would be most severely affected by Brexit, and viewed the irony with sympathy as well as sadness.
Labour's agony is that half their traditional vote sits on one side and half on the other. The radio 4 News Quiz the other day described the dilemma of constructing a Labour manifesto as like designing a menu for a dinner party where one guest is a hard core vegan and the other guest is a lion.
Apple has forcefully rebuffed the US government, I can't see them backing down in the UK.
Labour should run with a "Tories want to ban WhatsApp and iPhones" it's not far from the truth if you followed the idiotic proposal to its logical conclusion, and it might prompt the young to get off their arses and vote for something they really care about.
I think it's fair comment that when the government of which he was a part introduced income tax allowance withdrawal (a 67% income tax) on incomes above £100k, a politician given a £110k salary decides to make a charitable donation to get him under that limit.
Looked a good day at Newmarket - I thought BARNEY ROY was unlucky in the Guineas and SEVENTH HEAVEN could win the Arc if you knew it was going to be quick ground in France at the beginning of October so she won't win the Arc.
More impressed with WINTER - looking forward to her going against GALILEO GOLD in the Sussex (just a thought).
Have we seen the Derby winner yet ?
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15272792.New_Tory_councillor_unmasked_as_influential_arch__BritNat__Twitter_troll_who_boasts_about_his_manhood_online/
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/977083/tory-stirling-council-alastair-majury-tweets-benefits-election-twitter/
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/05/epa-boots-at-least-5-scientists-off-board-may-favor-replacements-from-industry/
Pretty hard to defend *if* it's true.
And in another story, it looks as though NASA's going to give the go-ahead for the first SLS rocket flight to be manned, for a slingshot mission around the Moon. This puts them in direct competition with SpaceX's mission to so the same.
It's controversial, as the SLS will not have flown, and the only time a manned spacecraft has flown a maiden mission with people on board was the Shuttle, and they were blooming lucky they didn't lose Colombia and its crew on that mission.
A lot of posters talk about "London" as if all 70-odd London seats will be different (usually better) for Labour than elsewhere. Whereas I suspect it's really a reflection of age. Inner London is young. But those areas of Outer London where the age profile is close to the UK average (which is most of it, excepting some Boroughs like Redbridge with rising younger Asian populations) will probably have swings against Labour in line with many rUK seats. Which may mean Labour prospects in Outer London are being over-estimated? Whereas in Inner London it depends on how the LibDems do against Labour for the Remain vote.
'It also emerged Majury boasted of his penis size on a dating website.
In one entry, he claimed his manhood was “7-8 inches” long with a “medium to thick girth”.
He added: “I can’t believe that most women would be satisfied with less than 5inches (or even less than 6?), other than in ‘other ways’.”'
I would have thought his evident charm and good looks would have made boasting about his old chap redundant.
Cars.
Philip Larkin.
That's about all I can think of.
“Irrespective of the participants at the dinner… [The] fact is that it was a serious mistake that parts of the talks were leaked,” he said.
The EU leader said that he was not responsible for the leak: “I am very good at being self-critical, but this I do not want to be accused for.”
Martin Selmayr, Mr Juncker’s chief of staff, was one of only two other people reportedly present for the talks and was named by the Sunday Times as the source of FAZ’s report.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/85773/jean-claude-juncker-theresa-may-brexit-dinner-leaks
In fact, what impact have they had on anything at all? I can think of only two: deliberately obnoxious behaviour in the Commons chamber, and making the lives of the hated English more difficult when they want to go shopping on a Sunday.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/861858673781600256
If Long-Baily won't add him, who will?
Electronic security is the nemesis of the tory party because if you can guarantee it, you can have electronic voting, and if you have electronic voting the young vs old turnout differential will either be yugely diminished or vanish altogether, and then the young vote will keep the tories out of power forever. So it is just possible that there is a conspiracy rather than cockup element in their plans to make the internet insecure.
At least irony isn't dead.
It all hinges on Diane.....
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/861866722307055616
More on this. The seats in play are where the SNP vote is well under half, so the most plausible non-SNP candidate can go to supporters of other parties and say, do you want us or do you want the SNP? As a rule of thumb, look for SNP vote shares less than 45%, which means a significant third party to squeeze.
https://twitter.com/GeoffShadbold/status/861835647761428480
If the Greens did well in a constituency, Labour will hold up. If UKIP did well, the Tories will threaten.
I can see Corbyn harvesting many thousands of Green votes in Lewisham, Hackney, Islington, Camberwell etc - and coming under real pressure in Eltham, Erith and Thamesmead, Dagenham and Rainham and so on.
The credibility of the local MP is going to be needed to stem the flow.
Winter looked very good. The Derby winner remains unclear, but I bet it is somehere in O'Brien's stables!
https://twitter.com/wollygogg/status/861857337136615425
By marginal seat I mean Labour majority of 11,500.
That looks very like projection to me.
National identity - English, Scottish
Collective identity - British
Seems to me that the Tories get the English identity vote in England, but the British identity vote in Scotland, for example.
Expansionary v protectionist - I am not sure great swathes of the Tory voting public is sold on the benefits of globalisation and the unfettered affects of the free market (see the new-found Tory fondness for energy price controls, for example); likewise, I am not sure that all Labour voters are keen on restricting the abilities of businesses to hire who they think is best to do the job.
for the full and hilarious story.
He tweeted that Le Pen would win and tweeted that he'd placed the bet. There are a lot of 'mistakes' here if his story is true.
Seems Labour voters are now in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" bind. Stay loyal to the party and keep Corbyn for who knows how much longer - or sit on their hands and get a huge Tory majority but an early start to rebuilding.
Still quite hard to know how that will go down.
The security services will always lobby politicians to restrict access to technology like encryption (for years PGP was not allowed outside the US), the job of the politicians is to define where the balance lies between privacy and security.
Thankfully, companies like Apple have come down hard on the side of privacy against the US government, which means an awful lot to the rest of the world's politicians - who wont be up for banning iPhones any time soon.
Still a silly idea though, much better is a free market in supply with a regulated company owning the infrastructure.
Mr. Urquhart (2), point of order: Miliband's policy was a price freeze. That's even more stupid.
Not that the Conservative price cap policy isn't stupid, just to a slightly lesser extent.
I suspect the Pirate Party isn't standing in my area. I'd be sorely tempted to vote for them, if they were.
Just because Corbyn's a bloody clown doesn't mean the Conservatives should have ridiculous policies in their manifesto.
Cameron was a master of that, like telling everyone how he would leave Child Tax Credit alone before the election, and then butchering it in his first budget. The North of England electrification program that got scrapped barely before the balot boxes had been put back in storage. Promising to open up government, then trying to restrict FOI once in office, and my particular favorite, giving workers three days off a year to do volunteer work, which didn't even get as far as the Queen Speech!
I'm on.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/861872876441542656
(1) The EU are also very worried about the consequences of a "no deal"
(2) They have realised they can't just browbeat May into making concessions, as they did with Cameron, and they're now no longer 100% sure she won't walk away
May has effectively called their bluff.
I was joking.
Not that it will make much difference in the overall scheme of things, mind.