Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
This is precisely what I do in relation to biological risk. I preach high reliability organization principles, the prime of which is 'if you are in a high consequence industry (one where a single incident can have catastrophic consequences, including putting you out of business), then you must plan not to fail rather than to maximize production'.
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Worth saying that the ORB poll has a small LD->Lab swing from 2015.
Pile on Lab Gain Leeds North West.
I'm on Labour to beat Clegg at 30-1. I think I'll let that stand.
It is a University seat, Clegg’s Euro-philia will surely help.
I think he’ll hold easily.
I thought tuition fee traitor Clegg was despised by students.
They say students are getting over that because of Brexit, and I'm told he is actually reasonably popular in the seat, but frankly I have my doubts, I think he is in real trouble once again, and he may hold, but it'll be tight again - Labour almost snatched it last time, students apparently like Corbyn, and the Tories won't help Clegg this time.
The thing is though that Sheffield Hallam doesn't actually have THAT many students - it's a "university seat" in the sense that lots of academics who work at Sheffield Uni live there.
On the other hand, Leeds North West actually does have an incredibly high number of students, which is why I think that's a better chance of a Labour gain.
But surely the best chance of a Labour gain in Leeds was in 2015? Students may or may not STILL be angry about fees... but is there any real risk they will be MORE angry than in 2015?
I know Corbynites would say Jezmania is sweeping the campuses... but I'm not sure the evidence on that is terribly compelling (esp post Brexit).
I don't think tuition fees will be a big deal for students this time, but also frankly I don't think Brexit will be that big a deal for students either: the people who are still wanting to reverse the referendum result tend to be slightly older "liberal intelligentsia" types, I think.
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that young people's voter registration is going through the roof this time. That isn't going to help Labour that much under FPTP since they already hold most seats with high concentrations of young people (outside of Scotland) anyway, but Leeds NW is one of the exceptions.
I really hope that is true. Young people need to vote. And I certainly wouldn't assume that increased turnout among the young would necessarily benefit Corbyn.
I tend to find the people angriest at young people not voting is the young people who do vote. They find it very frustrating.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
Of course the official national turnout figures for 18-24 year-olds are always 'wrong'. Many of the registered voters in that category are students and many of those are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they stick to the rules (and it's a bugbear of mine that apparently no-one checks) and only vote in one constituency then the maximum turnout for a student across both constituencies is 50%. The individual constituency turnouts are correct but the national figure will always understate participation in this age group.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
...
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
This is where I'm coming from too. I don't like Corbyn, at all, whereas I would not have cared that much if Ed M won (in fact I thought he would win), but Corbyn does get people who would not otherwise be excited worked up, and so far it looks like 2015 Lab voters are currently saying on the whole they intend to back the party up yet again, so percentage wise the 30 figure is more plausible that people think, even if his incompetence means it feels like it should be lower.
Re thread header - the LDs are less prominent than last time.
In 2015, Clegg was on the same QT programme on BBC1 as Cameron and Miliband in prime-time.
This time Farron is on same programme as Sturgeon - BBC1 6pm - will get very small audience.
Whereas May and Corbyn are on prime-time and also get longer - 45 mins each whereas Farron and Sturgeon get 30 mins each.
Having said that, these QT programmes are arguably a negative for everyone in the sense you'll just be under constant attack - so arguably you don't want to be seen.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
Re thread header - the LDs are less prominent than last time.
In 2015, Clegg was on the same QT programme on BBC1 as Cameron and Miliband in prime-time.
This time Farron is on same programme as Sturgeon - BBC1 6pm - will get very small audience.
Whereas May and Corbyn are on prime-time and also get longer - 45 mins each whereas Farron and Sturgeon get 30 mins each.
Having said that, these QT programmes are arguably a negative for everyone in the sense you'll just be under constant attack - so arguably you don't want to be seen.
That's the May strategy alright. Strong position, why risk anything you don't have to?
Corbyn should know he will probably lose, so has to risk situations which might hurt him, as they are still opportunities to improve too.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true. They are clearly unhappy, and they lost seats and mayoralties which would seem to argue they are willing to stay away/vote for someone else, but will they at the GE, seeing a May landslide in the offing? Less clear. They seem to be saying they will try to save the party from too big a rebuilding challenge.
This is precisely what I do in relation to biological risk. I preach high reliability organization principles, the prime of which is 'if you are in a high consequence industry (one where a single incident can have catastrophic consequences, including putting you out of business), then you must plan not to fail rather than to maximize production'.
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Good luck to you, Mr. T. If you ever get UK executives to sign up to HRO and continuous improvement you will have done more for the UK economy than anyone in living memory.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
UKIP score way too high though.
Kipper score should be roughly just over half of the VI score shouldn't it? Prob standing in places they are likely to do ok
Some places perhaps. I'd be interested in an analysis, as they are standing down in some places they did very well, explicitly to help the local Brexity candidate in some cases. They got 18% in my area last time and aren't standing this time.
OT Blimey, just seem just how many seats the LDs held in the SW in 2010, and how unlikely they are to make inroads this time. Rough times.
My fave LD South West statto seat is Somerton and Frome - 4 Lib Dem holds in 1997, 2001 & 2005 with sub 1000 majority, then in 2010 it went up to nearly 2000 (!) thanks to tactical voting (and the ridiculously named Annunziata Rees-Mogg got the highest number of votes for a losing candidate)
But then the LDs were swept away and the Tory majority in 2015 was 20,268!
Remarkable indeed. Locals really didn't like the coalition or really loved Cameron.
I recall reading CCHQ asked Annunziata if she could go by Nancy instead, and she said no. I hope that story is true.
They wanted her to run as Nancy Mogg.
That's worse - sounds like she has 15 cats and smells of wee
I agree. But CCHQ thought it would sound more working class.
A key demographic in Somerton and Frome, no doubt.
(hell, it might be for all I know, although I picture it as a quintessential Toryish Shire)
Many rural areas are far more working class than is generally assumed.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
Lab on 32 is their highest share of the campaign so far - however ORB has had Lab on 31 in both of its last two polls so ORB are tending to report higher Lab shares than other pollsters.
LDs are dead. Lab just keep creeping up, Corbyn safe as houses. Remember when close to 25 was seen as common? Really is showing Ed M was worse than I thought. Cooper and the others won't challenge him if they get that high.
UKIP score way too high though.
Kipper score should be roughly just over half of the VI score shouldn't it? Prob standing in places they are likely to do ok
Some places perhaps. I'd be interested in an analysis, as they are standing down in some places they did very well, explicitly to help the local Brexity candidate in some cases. They got 18% in my area last time and aren't standing this time.
OT Blimey, just seem just how many seats the LDs held in the SW in 2010, and how unlikely they are to make inroads this time. Rough times.
My fave LD South West statto seat is Somerton and Frome - 4 Lib Dem holds in 1997, 2001 & 2005 with sub 1000 majority, then in 2010 it went up to nearly 2000 (!) thanks to tactical voting (and the ridiculously named Annunziata Rees-Mogg got the highest number of votes for a losing candidate)
But then the LDs were swept away and the Tory majority in 2015 was 20,268!
Remarkable indeed. Locals really didn't like the coalition or really loved Cameron.
I recall reading CCHQ asked Annunziata if she could go by Nancy instead, and she said no. I hope that story is true.
They wanted her to run as Nancy Mogg.
That's worse - sounds like she has 15 cats and smells of wee
I agree. But CCHQ thought it would sound more working class.
A key demographic in Somerton and Frome, no doubt.
(hell, it might be for all I know, although I picture it as a quintessential Toryish Shire)
Many rural areas are far more working class than is generally assumed.
Although this does apply more to Eastern England.
I live only a few miles from Frome, and though its richer than my area and we mock it for being posh and hippyish, it doesn't seem wealthy as such, so I'm not hugely surprised if the rest of the seat (which is pretty darn big) is less well off than assumed.
Picturesque not posh, as was put earlier, is probably true of many places.
This is the write up...some totally unbelievable stuff in there e.g. Tories / Labour neck and neck with public sector workers*. I mean really, if Labour aren't even win among the lower earning working class or doctors and nurses where is there 31% coming from? Students?
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
Or that Labour is gaining in some areas and among some demographics but losing in others.
But if so the likelihood is that its gaining where it doesn't benefit and losing out where it does.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't.
And so we do. I don't think they'll get as high as that. But unless we just stop having polls altogether (which some would argue would be a good thing) I cannot discount that they might be close to right, and what would we get overexcited about without polls?
The Lib Dems are heading for armegeddon. Labour have sidelined them with a skilful daily campaign that has dominated the news. Lib Dems? Hello are you even there? You are now in grave damage of totally disappearing from the green bench. BUT they do not seem bothered, drifting along to nowhere as in 2010. Will there be an MP to be the new leader?
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
The Lib Dems are heading for armegeddon. Labour have sidelined them with a skilful daily campaign that has dominated the news. Lib Dems? Hello are you even there? You are now in grave damage of totally disappearing from the green bench. BUT they do not seem bothered, drifting along to nowhere as in 2010. Will there be an MP to be the new leader?
I don't think disappearing entirely is very likely, and projecting confidence is of course sometimes necessary, but they do seem once again to be complacent about how badly things might go. They could make a few gains and end up with no more seats than they have now, or make no gains and have less. I'd put low tens as more likely than either option, and they predictions of 20+ seem to have disappeared, but they don't seem that concerned.
Benefit and negative of having been near wiped out decades ago, and just 2 years ago as well - not much will faze them.
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
The Lib Dems are heading for armegeddon. Labour have sidelined them with a skilful daily campaign that has dominated the news. Lib Dems? Hello are you even there? You are now in grave damage of totally disappearing from the green bench. BUT they do not seem bothered, drifting along to nowhere as in 2010. Will there be an MP to be the new leader?
I have to admit [ and a bit surprised ] that Labour's campaign apart from Abbott's plane-crash has been good.
'moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell'. This is the point on which the argument falls down.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
Or that Labour is gaining in some areas and among some demographics but losing in others.
But if so the likelihood is that its gaining where it doesn't benefit and losing out where it does.
This is exactly it. Labour will be piling up votes in seats that are already safe and we already know that Corbyn would prefer 32% nationally clumped in 150 seats, so he has a claim to stay on.
At some point we are going to have to start giving credence to all these polls showing Labour still at Ed Miliband levels of support.
My point is that if Labour's vote is inefficient and piles up in safe seats it's perfectly possible. And we already know that Corbyn's objective is % of vote, not seats won.
This is precisely what I do in relation to biological risk. I preach high reliability organization principles, the prime of which is 'if you are in a high consequence industry (one where a single incident can have catastrophic consequences, including putting you out of business), then you must plan not to fail rather than to maximize production'.
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Good luck to you, Mr. T. If you ever get UK executives to sign up to HRO and continuous improvement you will have done more for the UK economy than anyone in living memory.
When presenting these ideas to one chief executive of a large private health care system provider in Pakistan, my colleague asked "Would you be interested in implementing these ideas?" The answer was "we cannot afford not to". That attitude is even more necessary for Britain post-Brexit.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
No it doesn't. Both anecdotal and polling evidence suggest Labour is close to its 2015 score, but that the Tories are eating UKIP, giving them a good lead.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
This is precisely what I do in relation to biological risk. I preach high reliability organization principles, the prime of which is 'if you are in a high consequence industry (one where a single incident can have catastrophic consequences, including putting you out of business), then you must plan not to fail rather than to maximize production'.
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Please let us know when the paper is out; sounds like a must-read.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
No it doesn't. Both anecdotal and polling evidence suggest Labour is close to its 2015 score, but that the Tories are eating UKIP, giving them a good lead.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
But weren't your 2015 canvass returns somewhat different to the actual votes ?
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
British people do not like dictators. Particular those with zero charisma.
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
British people do not like dictators. Particular those with zero charisma.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
No it doesn't. Both anecdotal and polling evidence suggest Labour is close to its 2015 score, but that the Tories are eating UKIP, giving them a good lead.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
But weren't your 2015 canvass returns somewhat different to the actual votes ?
Tick Tock so to say
If so, then that could still mean 'no worse than 2015',which Corbyn would take in a heartbeat I am sure.
The Lib Dems are heading for armegeddon. Labour have sidelined them with a skilful daily campaign that has dominated the news. Lib Dems? Hello are you even there? You are now in grave damage of totally disappearing from the green bench. BUT they do not seem bothered, drifting along to nowhere as in 2010. Will there be an MP to be the new leader?
I don't think disappearing entirely is very likely, and projecting confidence is of course sometimes necessary, but they do seem once again to be complacent about how badly things might go. They could make a few gains and end up with no more seats than they have now, or make no gains and have less. I'd put low tens as more likely than either option, and they predictions of 20+ seem to have disappeared, but they don't seem that concerned.
Benefit and negative of having been near wiped out decades ago, and just 2 years ago as well - not much will faze them.
The LibDems are heading for a 1979 result.
What they need to happen is a repeat of the post 1979 events ie a Labour split and an alliance with the splitters.
What they don't want is the Corbynists losing control of Labour or Labour splitters opposing an alliance with them.
This is precisely what I do in relation to biological risk. I preach high reliability organization principles, the prime of which is 'if you are in a high consequence industry (one where a single incident can have catastrophic consequences, including putting you out of business), then you must plan not to fail rather than to maximize production'.
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Good luck to you, Mr. T. If you ever get UK executives to sign up to HRO and continuous improvement you will have done more for the UK economy than anyone in living memory.
When presenting these ideas to one chief executive of a large private health care system provider in Pakistan, my colleague asked "Would you be interested in implementing these ideas?" The answer was "we cannot afford not to". That attitude is even more necessary for Britain post-Brexit.
I agree, Mr.T, but as we have just seen a good proportion of UK executives see things differently and that is in the public sector where there is more constraint on their ability to be complete pillocks. The situation in the private sector, especially amongst the SMEs, is much worse.
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
British people do not like dictators. Particular those with zero charisma.
Emphasising the leader of a party is not equivalent to appearing like a dictator - while dictators do it, there are important differences that make the emphasis more off putting.
I don't personally see why May's appeal is as high as polling and anecdata suggests it is, but if they are correct, then her campaign approach will be a success.
Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms.
Sounds about right. Could almost be parts of the public sector - in my limited experience you have those at the top great at saying the right things sometimes, but actions rarely back up the words, for all sclerosis lower down is usually blamed for stagnation (not entirely without cause, of course)
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
British people do not like dictators. Particular those with zero charisma.
I think Labour has gained 5 points during the campaign so far. Tories have lost 2. Others have lost 3.
Given the Tories opened at stratospheric levels, not too bad from them so far, good job from Labour if that is backed up by the vote, and terrible from everyone else.
Labour on 32...this is getting stupid...totally having a giraffe.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
Where ?
ORB
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Baxtered Con majority = 96. Note London will not give the same swing as few UKIP voters. The East of England right upto the Humber with lots of UKIP voters switching to the Tories will provide very few Tory gains.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Why would that help Labour - if May is more popular than the Tories, and it strengthens a May vs Corbyn narrative, then I can see why they'd think it would in fact help them.
British people do not like dictators. Particular those with zero charisma.
Ones that call themselves the Supreme Leader?
Yup. Like Theresa "My Team" May.
There is only one leader known as the Supreme Leader by his team...Jahadi Jez.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
You might be right.
My journey since his candidature was announced has been -
- I didn't know there were any left wingers left in parliament - Is that the Jeremy Corbybn with the photogenic beard who used to get into trouble back in the eighties? - Nice to see him get on the ballot but who will vote for him? - Blimey, he's won. I can't see the press or the voters letting him last 6 months - Well the Labour vote hasn't totally collapsed yet - Okay he's doing pretty badly, but would anyone else have done any better? - Looks like I'll actually have to decide whether or not to vote Labour with Corbyn in charge after all - Well, what's the worst that could happen? He's not going to win but at least there's a chance my vote might stir things up a bit.
If I'd been polled at any point I'd have said I wouldn't vote and expressed dissatisfaction with Corbyn's leadership. But now it is upon us I'll probably turn up and vote Labour after all.
I have no idea if I'm a one off, in a small minority or typical of many millions of people up and down the country.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.83m (33.9%) 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 4.19m (25.4%) 18:30: ITV Evening News - 2.63m (17.0%) 22:00: ITV News at Ten - 1.36m (8.2%)
Bearing in mind some people will watch both 6 and 10 - only about 10m people are watching a TV news each night (C4 gets about 0.5m, news channel audiences are negligible).
OK, could be argued these people are much more likely to vote but even so fact remains that vast majority of people are seeing very little, if anything, of the campaign on TV. Makes it much harder to change voting intentions.
And audiences will fall further over next few weeks as we move into summer.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
I don't know about all the companies, but YouGov at least has been polling weekly (twice weekly more recently) and shown a consistent net flow of voters from Labour to Lib Dem. The most recent survey, for example, shows 18% of the LD 2015 vote moving in one direction and 9% of the Lab 2015 vote moving in the other. Given that Labour polled approximately four times as many votes as the Lib Dems last time, this means that the absolute numbers moving are significantly in the Lib Dems' favour. Given what we know about the parties' relative political positioning, both generally and w.r.t. to Brexit, this seems logical.
There is also no shortage of data on movements from Ukip to other parties. This suggests that around half of the 2015 Ukip vote has gone Conservative, but only a small fraction has broken for other parties. Again, this seems logical.
Therefore, the notion of the Labour vote share going up rests on the balance between the following being net in Labour's favour:
AGAINST Labour: net defections to Con and LD
IN FAVOUR OF Labour: net defections from Ukip and Green, and support of non-voters
If we assume that the input of votes from Ukip *in those seats where Ukip is still standing* is liable to be paltry, then any increase in Labour's vote share can only really come from 1. Core Ukip voters deprived of a candidate; 2. Green voters; and 3. Non-voters.
Category 1 is the wildcard of the election - we don't really know what proportion of these people will go Tory in the absence of Ukip, sit on their hands, or return to Labour because they are convinced anti-Tories. However, FWIW, they probably can't explain why Labour is doing as well as it is in the polls because it is unlikely that that many notional Ukip voters sampled by the pollsters are both aware that Ukip isn't standing in their constituency, and have made up their minds already about who else to support.
Category 2 only contains about a million voters nationwide, and there's no evidence to suggest an imminent collapse in the Green vote. Moreover, even though the party is standing down some candidates to help Labour and the Lib Dems in marginal seats, we should be wary of the notion that all Green voters are mad-keen leftists: apparently, a substantial proportion of the Green second preferences in the West of England mayoral contest went to the Conservative winner, for example. Therefore, movement from the Greens is unlikely to boost Labour by more than 1% of the electorate at the very most, and will probably account for well short of that.
This means, in essence, that an increase in the Labour vote share relative to 2015 will almost certainly have to come from non-voters. Non-voters are called that for a reason: they are typically very disinterested in or reluctant to turn out. So, does Jeremy Corbyn have the exceptional level of motivating power to get large numbers of non-voters to turn out in his favour? I'm not so sure. Labour's share in the council elections just past was awful; this election is not generating the same level of feverish excitement as the Scottish independence referendum or even the EU vote; and the kinds of voters Corbyn will be reliant upon to compensate for his losses will be disproportionately very young and very poor - the two groups who also happen to be very bad at hauling arse down to the polling stations, as the rock-bottom participation rates for 18-24s and the low turnouts in so many core Labour seats at election after election after election so ably demonstrate.
In short, if something smells wrong it probably is. Labour on 32%, given the party's absolutely dreadful performance in the supplementary questions on leadership, economic competence and Brexit, has "polling fiasco" written all over it.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.83m (33.9%) 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 4.19m (25.4%) 18:30: ITV Evening News - 2.63m (17.0%) 22:00: ITV News at Ten - 1.36m (8.2%)
Bearing in mind some people will watch both 6 and 10 - only about 10m people are watching a TV news each night (C4 gets about 0.5m, news channel audiences are negligible).
OK, could be argued these people are much more likely to vote but even so fact remains that vast majority of people aren't seeing very little, if anything, of the campaign on TV. Makes it much harder to change voting intentions.
You only have to hear the response when the media have asked the public about "Strong and Stable", despite the media and us political nerds sick to death of it the response has been oh yeah I think I heard that once or twice...
It was why New Labour were so good with media management. Bad Al would decide on a theme and they would then get that crow-barred into every media appearance for the rest of the week / month.
Please let us know when the paper is out; sounds like a must-read.
Will do. It is the culmination of my 25-year evolution from quantitative and technical approaches to risk assessment and management to the real sharp end human performance factors. The failures of the CDC and US Army Dugway (sending out gain-of-function flu and inadequately sterilized anthrax through the mail respectively) in 2014 really refocussed my work - if these institutions with all the knowledge, budgets, SOPs, compliance systems and engineering solutions can fail, what is it that leads to success?
HROs and positive deviants show that the answers are revolutionary - turning many of the assumptions of traditional business on their heads.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.83m (33.9%) 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 4.19m (25.4%) 18:30: ITV Evening News - 2.63m (17.0%) 22:00: ITV News at Ten - 1.36m (8.2%)
Bearing in mind some people will watch both 6 and 10 - only about 10m people are watching a TV news each night (C4 gets about 0.5m, news channel audiences are negligible).
OK, could be argued these people are much more likely to vote but even so fact remains that vast majority of people are seeing very little, if anything, of the campaign on TV. Makes it much harder to change voting intentions.
The only floating voters in this election are the Blairists. They are homeless.
Tories have dropped from the ludicrously high post-announcement polls but appear to have been stable - and up - over the campaign.
All four minor parties on this are being squeezed - and that's in agreement with what most anecdotes are saying. Labour are gaining a vote from the previous 'others'/minors that don't want a 100+ majority.
My journey since his candidature was announced has been -
- I didn't know there were any left wingers left in parliament - Is that the Jeremy Corbybn with the photogenic beard who used to get into trouble back in the eighties? - Nice to see him get on the ballot but who will vote for him? - Blimey, he's won. I can't see the press or the voters letting him last 6 months - Well the Labour vote hasn't totally collapsed yet - Okay he's doing pretty badly, but would anyone else have done any better? - Looks like I'll actually have to decide whether or not to vote Labour with Corbyn in charge after all - Well, what's the worst that could happen? He's not going to win but at least there's a chance my vote might stir things up a bit.
If I'd been polled at any point I'd have said I wouldn't vote and expressed dissatisfaction with Corbyn's leadership. But now it is upon us I'll probably turn up and vote Labour after all.
I have no idea if I'm a one off, in a small minority or typical of many millions of people up and down the country.
Your journey seems to be exactly the one many of my friends have made. The only thing I'll add is that six months ago they were all dissatisfied with Corbyn and Labour on Brexit to the point of claiming to support the Lib Dems.
Now Jeremy is the best thing since sliced bread, of course - and the manifesto has really got them fired up.
Your last point, what's the worst that could happen, at least my vote might stir things up a bit - sums up for me exactly why Trump and Brexit were unexpected victors.
That's not going to happen here but I really don't think 32% is impossible.
It's quite feasible that Corbyn takes 1m votes from the Greens, left wing Lib Dems, and people who didn't vote last time, while losing another million to the Conservatives, who pick up up a couple of million from UKIP in addition.
F1: although Raikkonen wasn't on pole, the hedge was matched, so the bet's greenery or not depends on that.
I also put a tiny bit on the Ladbrokes exchange for the first time, but the hedge there was not matched, it seems (I only tipped Betfair so that's green).
Edited extra bit: on-topic: it's an interesting problem of providing fair coverage to minor parties. I do think focusing on the electoral results from last time is perhaps the least worst option as it's least open to gerrymandering, bias or the vagaries of opinion polls.
Con share hasn't fallen at all - see Rob's graph - every average point is the average of a 7 day period - from 3 days before to 3 days after the average point.
Con is rock solid for 4 weeks in a row at just over 46.
WRT the ORB poll, the Conservatives are up 4% on the start of the campaign, Labour up 1%.
For Labour to win 30% or so means very little if the Conservatives are close to 50%.
I continue to maintain that Labour won't even make 30%, and that they're being over-counted: given the copious amounts of data from the secondary questions, most of which is appalling for Labour, the notion that they'll still end up doing about as well as they did under EdM is somewhat difficult to swallow. Ditto the suggestion that the Lib Dems are virtually static relative to their 2015 position.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms.
Sounds about right. Could almost be parts of the public sector - in my limited experience you have those at the top great at saying the right things sometimes, but actions rarely back up the words, for all sclerosis lower down is usually blamed for stagnation (not entirely without cause, of course)
That "sclerosis lower down" to which you refer is undoubtedly real but in my experience is down to the fact that most bosses in the public sector seldom stay in post for more than two years and anyway the drive from the top will always change as someone else further up in the hierarchy is replaced. The worker bees can therefore carry on doing pretty much what they have always done in the comfortable knowledge that before they really do have to change their behaviours the person trying to force change on them will have been promoted or otherwise moved on.
I agree, Mr.T, but as we have just seen a good proportion of UK executives see things differently and that is in the public sector where there is more constraint on their ability to be complete pillocks. The situation in the private sector, especially amongst the SMEs, is much worse.
I am constantly at loggerheads with the so-called SMEs in the biosecurity world. For the most part, their expertise lies in how to milk money from government agencies, rather than to actually think about what might work in managing biosecurity risks. The biosafety world - particularly at the safety officer level - is way better, as they know the compliance approach simply does not work and are desperate for approaches that do.
I note Hunt is the longest-in-post of any Cabinet Minister by a considerable distance. I doubt many people want that job, but given he has been terrible and imminent to be fired it seems for years if I listen to his critics, he has done well to hang on.
Please let us know when the paper is out; sounds like a must-read.
Will do. It is the culmination of my 25-year evolution from quantitative and technical approaches to risk assessment and management to the real sharp end human performance factors. The failures of the CDC and US Army Dugway (sending out gain-of-function flu and inadequately sterilized anthrax through the mail respectively) in 2014 really refocussed my work - if these institutions with all the knowledge, budgets, SOPs, compliance systems and engineering solutions can fail, what is it that leads to success?
HROs and positive deviants show that the answers are revolutionary - turning many of the assumptions of traditional business on their heads.
Intriguing. Please try to make it as accessible as possible to the non-nerd.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
No it doesn't. Both anecdotal and polling evidence suggest Labour is close to its 2015 score, but that the Tories are eating UKIP, giving them a good lead.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
But weren't your 2015 canvass returns somewhat different to the actual votes ?
Please let us know when the paper is out; sounds like a must-read.
Will do. It is the culmination of my 25-year evolution from quantitative and technical approaches to risk assessment and management to the real sharp end human performance factors. The failures of the CDC and US Army Dugway (sending out gain-of-function flu and inadequately sterilized anthrax through the mail respectively) in 2014 really refocussed my work - if these institutions with all the knowledge, budgets, SOPs, compliance systems and engineering solutions can fail, what is it that leads to success?
HROs and positive deviants show that the answers are revolutionary - turning many of the assumptions of traditional business on their heads.
Intriguing. Please try to make it as accessible as possible to the non-nerd.
That's what I try to do. I am not an academic. My interest is in results through changing behaviours appropriately.
If 32% is even close to the correct figure, then it will be true.
And so we go back to the very strong likelihood that it isn't. Anecdotal and polling evidence does suggest that Corbyn is repelling a big chunk of Labour's traditional support, especially in the North and the Midlands.
No it doesn't. Both anecdotal and polling evidence suggest Labour is close to its 2015 score, but that the Tories are eating UKIP, giving them a good lead.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
But weren't your 2015 canvass returns somewhat different to the actual votes ?
Tick Tock so to say
;-) My thought exactly.
One thing we learnt was not to trust a word he said about canvassing returns - tick tock
Tories have dropped from the ludicrously high post-announcement polls but appear to have been stable - and up - over the campaign.
All four minor parties on this are being squeezed - and that's in agreement with what most anecdotes are saying. Labour are gaining a vote from the previous 'others'/minors that don't want a 100+ majority.
I think that all makes rough sense.
The Goldilocks Election, anyone?
Since the local elections, the Conservative lead has averaged 17.5%.
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
1. I don't like Jeremy 2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair 4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane 6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
Since when have people ever thought things though in anything?
Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms.
Sounds about right. Could almost be parts of the public sector - in my limited experience you have those at the top great at saying the right things sometimes, but actions rarely back up the words, for all sclerosis lower down is usually blamed for stagnation (not entirely without cause, of course)
That "sclerosis lower down" to which you refer is undoubtedly real but in my experience is down to the fact that most bosses in the public sector seldom stay in post for more than two years and anyway the drive from the top will always change as someone else further up in the hierarchy is replaced. The worker bees can therefore carry on doing pretty much what they have always done in the comfortable knowledge that before they really do have to change their behaviours the person trying to force change on them will have been promoted or otherwise moved on.
In the nuclear industry, the focus has had to become more peer-peer and intra-group responsibility rather than top down. Tim Autrey (nuclear subs then nuclear power) has a good book called 6-Hour Safety Culture. It gets its name from his approach to doing day-long sessions by work group, to illicit from them what standards they want to hold themselves personally and as work colleagues accountable to.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.83m (33.9%) 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 4.19m (25.4%) 18:30: ITV Evening News - 2.63m (17.0%) 22:00: ITV News at Ten - 1.36m (8.2%)
Bearing in mind some people will watch both 6 and 10 - only about 10m people are watching a TV news each night (C4 gets about 0.5m, news channel audiences are negligible).
OK, could be argued these people are much more likely to vote but even so fact remains that vast majority of people aren't seeing very little, if anything, of the campaign on TV. Makes it much harder to change voting intentions.
You only have to hear the response when the media have asked the public about "Strong and Stable", despite the media and us political nerds sick to death of it the response has been oh yeah I think I heard that once or twice...
It was why New Labour were so good with media management. Bad Al would decide on a theme and they would then get that crow-barred into every media appearance for the rest of the week / month.
TV viewing habits are so different now. Vast numbers avoid adverts and news easily.
I agree, Mr.T, but as we have just seen a good proportion of UK executives see things differently and that is in the public sector where there is more constraint on their ability to be complete pillocks. The situation in the private sector, especially amongst the SMEs, is much worse.
Executives generally measure the outputs rather than inputs, but it's the inputs that make the difference.
Maybe, they should however I don't suppose that they are unusual in not planning for the worst. A few years ago I was involved in an initiative to try and get organisations, especially SMEs, to actively consider "disaster" planning. To consider what would happen if they were hit by a critical incident which involved the loss of access to data, premises, key staff or damage to their reputation (most SMEs hit by such an incident are out of business inside 18 months). It was an utter waste of time.
Most executives we spoke to, including some in pretty large companies, would accept that there was a risk but it wouldn't happen to them. Anyway there were more important things to think about and money spent on planning to cope with something that, probably, wouldn't happen was money wasted..
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms.
Sounds about right. Could almost be parts of the public sector - in my limited experience you have those at the top great at saying the right things sometimes, but actions rarely back up the words, for all sclerosis lower down is usually blamed for stagnation (not entirely without cause, of course)
That "sclerosis lower down" to which you refer is undoubtedly real but in my experience is down to the fact that most bosses in the public sector seldom stay in post for more than two years and anyway the drive from the top will always change as someone else further up in the hierarchy is replaced. The worker bees can therefore carry on doing pretty much what they have always done in the comfortable knowledge that before they really do have to change their behaviours the person trying to force change on them will have been promoted or otherwise moved on.
Yep. Or if they really want change there won't be time to get the boss on side before they move on, and you have to start over.
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
1. I don't like Jeremy 2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair 4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane 6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***REPEAT UNTIL HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE***
these people aren't overly political, they don't make those long term calculations.
I agree, Mr.T, but as we have just seen a good proportion of UK executives see things differently and that is in the public sector where there is more constraint on their ability to be complete pillocks. The situation in the private sector, especially amongst the SMEs, is much worse.
Executives generally measure the outputs rather than inputs, but it's the inputs that make the difference.
Indeed. You cannot learn from lagging indicators alone. The skill is in identifying the right leading indicators.
Tories have dropped from the ludicrously high post-announcement polls but appear to have been stable - and up - over the campaign.
All four minor parties on this are being squeezed - and that's in agreement with what most anecdotes are saying. Labour are gaining a vote from the previous 'others'/minors that don't want a 100+ majority.
I think that all makes rough sense.
The Goldilocks Election, anyone?
Since the local elections, the Conservative lead has averaged 17.5%.
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
1. I don't like Jeremy 2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair 4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane 6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***REPEAT UNTIL HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE***
Not saying that it is a fully thought through process, but that is how some will probably react once in the booth.
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
1. I don't like Jeremy 2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair 4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane 6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***REPEAT UNTIL HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE***
You're right but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Ultimately the problem here is tribalism, which Labour is particularly guilty of. Never kissed a Tory, Theresa May eats babies, etc.
We are testing the hatstand-with-a-red-rosette theory to destruction here, but the polls seem to be indicating we are entering an eerie twilight world where Labour retains its 2015 votes plus packs on a fair few from the far left.
I'm not discounting a polling failure but I was expecting to see Labour doing far worse at this point.
Even those who dislike Corbyn seem to like his manifesto. It's superficially appealing, it chimes with the populist, anti-establishment times, and I wouldn't put it past 32% of the population to either believe a) there's a magic money tree or b) things are so bad now, they can't get any worse.
There are a lot of parallels between the Conservative 2017 campaign and the 2016 stronger in campaign. It's all 'why risk it' and 'you're safer staying with the status quo' when in fact as we already know a huge number of people are fed up with what they see as declining living standards over the past decade or more and are willing to take a gamble on pretty much anyone promising them more than what they have now.
One other thing about the current polls - with LD and UKIP both now low it's much harder for the Con and Lab shares to change much in the sense that there is little scope for them to take votes from LD or UKIP as they are both already low.
And all evidence for many years is that very few people indeed switch directly between Con and Lab .
So there is little scope for Con or Lab to pick up votes. OK, it could be argued they could lose votes to LD or UKIP - but LD seem to have little momentum and it appears almost nobody would switch to UKIP at the moment.
Those ORB figures imply a swing from Lab to Con of 3.7% and would – if the swing is universal – result in 31 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would end up on 201 seats plus any that might be clawed back from the SNP.
Add to this that after 7 weeks of 'Conservative landslide nailed on' some swing voters might put their X by the Labour candidate name just to ensure that the landslide is not of proportions which would render the government obnoxious for lack of an opposition.
yes, I have heard anecdotal evidence of this. They don't like labour or Corbyn but will vote Labour to stop a massive majority.
People following that line of thinking appear to have, erm, stopped actually thinking halfway through...
1. I don't like Jeremy 2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair 4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane 6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***REPEAT UNTIL HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE***
these people aren't overly political, they don't make those long term calculations.
It's a fair cop, guv.
If the Labour Party really does end up with a third of the popular vote at the end of all of this, then I think I'm going to gain some new insight into the Continuity Remainer mindset. Not the extreme, unhinged A C Grayling end of the spectrum, but the more conventional "What the fuck were they all thinking?!" tendency.
When UKIP was on the rise the BBC were a bit slow to give them the due prominence their support warranted in the national conversation, so it is no surprise that with UKIP on the fall the BBC are slow to withdraw that prominence. They are conservative in many ways, and I can appreciate the justification for it here. What the BBC will want to avoid at any cost is being seen to create an increase in support for a party by giving them more prominence than their past performance would justify.
Certainly on the basis of national vote share at the last general election, 12.6% vs 3.8%, UKIP would merit more attention than the Greens.
But, of course, as a Green supporter I think this is blatant bias from the BBC, and nothing less than giving Caroline Lucas an uninterrupted slot on every news bulletin will serve to redress the imbalance...
Those ORB figures imply a swing from Lab to Con of 3.7% and would – if the swing is universal – result in 31 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would end up on 201 seats plus any that might be clawed back from the SNP.
Possible, if still unlikely. Seems like the upper limit.
Those ORB figures imply a swing from Lab to Con of 3.7% and would – if the swing is universal – result in 31 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would end up on 201 seats plus any that might be clawed back from the SNP.
Possible, if still unlikely. Seems like the upper limit.
It would suggest a Tory majority similar to 1987 & 1959.
Those ORB figures imply a swing from Lab to Con of 3.7% and would – if the swing is universal – result in 31 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would end up on 201 seats plus any that might be clawed back from the SNP.
Possible, if still unlikely. Seems like the upper limit.
The swing won't be universal. All you need to know.
Those ORB figures imply a swing from Lab to Con of 3.7% and would – if the swing is universal – result in 31 Tory gains from Labour. Labour would end up on 201 seats plus any that might be clawed back from the SNP.
Possible, if still unlikely. Seems like the upper limit.
It would suggest a Tory majority similar to 1987 & 1959.
In practice, a lead of 16% would probably produce a bigger majority.
Comments
The beautiful thing about the HRO approach is that when it is properly implemented, while it shifts strategic approach from profit maximization to safety/security, it actually ends up improving all aspects of the business, including profitability.
The reasons for this is that the continual improvement processes put in place and the non-technical skills improved (situational awareness, decision-making, communication, team building, leadership, management of stress and fatigue) to achieve safety excellence result in better understanding of processes, superb 2-way communication, full worker engagement and empowerment, healthy culture, etc... etc... which end up helping to continually improve every aspect of the business. In short, if it is done safely and securely, it is done 'right', with far less waste and loss of time, hence greater productivity.
Reception to these ideas in the US is rapturous at the mid-level and lukewarm at best in most board rooms. At events, I am frequently rated best presenter, and I can assure you that it is not particularly because of my presentation skills. I am currently implementing this in Pakistan in universities, hospitals, diagnostic and research labs, and vaccine production facilities. I hope that if I can demonstrate its success there, then US institutions will have to take notice. The signs are that awareness is spreading in the US, but people don't quite see how to implement the ideas in practice.
So that is where my work is now really focussing. Paper for publishing in June, and a couple of books to follow by the end of the year.
Social media amplifies everything but this year I am seeing a lot of people exercised about Corbyn and Labour in a way they simply weren't in 2015.
We call it a cult in jest, but the truth is it feels quasi-religious in nature and Corbyn is clearly reaching the parts that other politicans can't reach.. He inspires a fanatical devotion in some and moderate Labour voters aren't turning away from the party as far as I can tell.
Corbyn is an insurgent the way Trump was. Nobody thought he could become his party's leader, nobody thought he would win. We laughed at his TV performances and watched as the mainstream media mocked him.
I don't think he'll win. He'll pile up votes in safe seats and the oldies will turn out in their droves to shaft him. Plus being drowned by UKIP to Con switchers.
But there's still a reasonable case to suggest that Corbyn will secure a greater %age than Ed Miliband did.
Ed was a bland candidate, a stuffed shirt. Corbyn actually excites people.
If he can retain most Labour voters from 2015, plus take votes from the Lib Dems and the greens, plus a few non-voters, why not?
Of course the official national turnout figures for 18-24 year-olds are always 'wrong'. Many of the registered voters in that category are students and many of those are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they stick to the rules (and it's a bugbear of mine that apparently no-one checks) and only vote in one constituency then the maximum turnout for a student across both constituencies is 50%. The individual constituency turnouts are correct but the national figure will always understate participation in this age group.
Polling disaster inquiry Mark II coming up.
In 2015, Clegg was on the same QT programme on BBC1 as Cameron and Miliband in prime-time.
This time Farron is on same programme as Sturgeon - BBC1 6pm - will get very small audience.
Whereas May and Corbyn are on prime-time and also get longer - 45 mins each whereas Farron and Sturgeon get 30 mins each.
Having said that, these QT programmes are arguably a negative for everyone in the sense you'll just be under constant attack - so arguably you don't want to be seen.
In 2015 Labour had a very good and energetic candidate who isn't standing this time.
The Labour voters in Sheffield Hallam aren't Corbynites, they earn 100k plus, own very expensive houses, a lot work in the University sector.
Corbyn's policies isn't very popular with them.
Corbyn should know he will probably lose, so has to risk situations which might hurt him, as they are still opportunities to improve too.
Although this does apply more to Eastern England.
(changes since last week)
Con 46 (nc) Lab 32 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 7 (-1)
Picturesque not posh, as was put earlier, is probably true of many places.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/exclusive-telegraph-orb-poll-conservatives-lead-across-social/
* and remember there is a lot less public sector workers than 7 years ago.
But if so the likelihood is that its gaining where it doesn't benefit and losing out where it does.
North maybe. But I do not know the local situations.
What is definitely helping Labour is the perception of a landslide. Plus Theresa May's "me me me ". She does not even use the word Conservative. My team !
Benefit and negative of having been near wiped out decades ago, and just 2 years ago as well - not much will faze them.
At some point we are going to have to start giving credence to all these polls showing Labour still at Ed Miliband levels of support.
My point is that if Labour's vote is inefficient and piles up in safe seats it's perfectly possible. And we already know that Corbyn's objective is % of vote, not seats won.
I was in a team of 8 canvassing a WWC ward today - 125 people met, two ex-Labour losses (to won't vote) both citing Corbyn, one ex-DK Lab gain, also citing Corbyn. Otherwise extremely similar to the last (2015) canvass.
Tick Tock so to say
https://www.ft.com/content/9044ff9a-358b-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
Price of an Andy Burnham Posh Coffee.
What they need to happen is a repeat of the post 1979 events ie a Labour split and an alliance with the splitters.
What they don't want is the Corbynists losing control of Labour or Labour splitters opposing an alliance with them.
I don't personally see why May's appeal is as high as polling and anecdata suggests it is, but if they are correct, then her campaign approach will be a success.
" Who would you rather see as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn or Ed Miliband?"
if TMA does get say a 60-odd majority, how does this impact the planned boundary review... i presume that will be easier to get through too?
My journey since his candidature was announced has been -
- I didn't know there were any left wingers left in parliament
- Is that the Jeremy Corbybn with the photogenic beard who used to get into trouble back in the eighties?
- Nice to see him get on the ballot but who will vote for him?
- Blimey, he's won. I can't see the press or the voters letting him last 6 months
- Well the Labour vote hasn't totally collapsed yet
- Okay he's doing pretty badly, but would anyone else have done any better?
- Looks like I'll actually have to decide whether or not to vote Labour with Corbyn in charge after all
- Well, what's the worst that could happen? He's not going to win but at least there's a chance my vote might stir things up a bit.
If I'd been polled at any point I'd have said I wouldn't vote and expressed dissatisfaction with Corbyn's leadership. But now it is upon us I'll probably turn up and vote Labour after all.
I have no idea if I'm a one off, in a small minority or typical of many millions of people up and down the country.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.83m (33.9%)
22:00: BBC News at Ten - 4.19m (25.4%)
18:30: ITV Evening News - 2.63m (17.0%)
22:00: ITV News at Ten - 1.36m (8.2%)
Bearing in mind some people will watch both 6 and 10 - only about 10m people are watching a TV news each night (C4 gets about 0.5m, news channel audiences are negligible).
OK, could be argued these people are much more likely to vote but even so fact remains that vast majority of people are seeing very little, if anything, of the campaign on TV. Makes it much harder to change voting intentions.
And audiences will fall further over next few weeks as we move into summer.
There is also no shortage of data on movements from Ukip to other parties. This suggests that around half of the 2015 Ukip vote has gone Conservative, but only a small fraction has broken for other parties. Again, this seems logical.
Therefore, the notion of the Labour vote share going up rests on the balance between the following being net in Labour's favour:
AGAINST Labour: net defections to Con and LD
IN FAVOUR OF Labour: net defections from Ukip and Green, and support of non-voters
If we assume that the input of votes from Ukip *in those seats where Ukip is still standing* is liable to be paltry, then any increase in Labour's vote share can only really come from 1. Core Ukip voters deprived of a candidate; 2. Green voters; and 3. Non-voters.
(TBC)
Category 1 is the wildcard of the election - we don't really know what proportion of these people will go Tory in the absence of Ukip, sit on their hands, or return to Labour because they are convinced anti-Tories. However, FWIW, they probably can't explain why Labour is doing as well as it is in the polls because it is unlikely that that many notional Ukip voters sampled by the pollsters are both aware that Ukip isn't standing in their constituency, and have made up their minds already about who else to support.
Category 2 only contains about a million voters nationwide, and there's no evidence to suggest an imminent collapse in the Green vote. Moreover, even though the party is standing down some candidates to help Labour and the Lib Dems in marginal seats, we should be wary of the notion that all Green voters are mad-keen leftists: apparently, a substantial proportion of the Green second preferences in the West of England mayoral contest went to the Conservative winner, for example. Therefore, movement from the Greens is unlikely to boost Labour by more than 1% of the electorate at the very most, and will probably account for well short of that.
This means, in essence, that an increase in the Labour vote share relative to 2015 will almost certainly have to come from non-voters. Non-voters are called that for a reason: they are typically very disinterested in or reluctant to turn out. So, does Jeremy Corbyn have the exceptional level of motivating power to get large numbers of non-voters to turn out in his favour? I'm not so sure. Labour's share in the council elections just past was awful; this election is not generating the same level of feverish excitement as the Scottish independence referendum or even the EU vote; and the kinds of voters Corbyn will be reliant upon to compensate for his losses will be disproportionately very young and very poor - the two groups who also happen to be very bad at hauling arse down to the polling stations, as the rock-bottom participation rates for 18-24s and the low turnouts in so many core Labour seats at election after election after election so ably demonstrate.
In short, if something smells wrong it probably is. Labour on 32%, given the party's absolutely dreadful performance in the supplementary questions on leadership, economic competence and Brexit, has "polling fiasco" written all over it.
It was why New Labour were so good with media management. Bad Al would decide on a theme and they would then get that crow-barred into every media appearance for the rest of the week / month.
HROs and positive deviants show that the answers are revolutionary - turning many of the assumptions of traditional business on their heads.
Tories have dropped from the ludicrously high post-announcement polls but appear to have been stable - and up - over the campaign.
All four minor parties on this are being squeezed - and that's in agreement with what most anecdotes are saying. Labour are gaining a vote from the previous 'others'/minors that don't want a 100+ majority.
I think that all makes rough sense.
The Goldilocks Election, anyone?
Now Jeremy is the best thing since sliced bread, of course - and the manifesto has really got them fired up.
Your last point, what's the worst that could happen, at least my vote might stir things up a bit - sums up for me exactly why Trump and Brexit were unexpected victors.
That's not going to happen here but I really don't think 32% is impossible.
F1: although Raikkonen wasn't on pole, the hedge was matched, so the bet's greenery or not depends on that.
I also put a tiny bit on the Ladbrokes exchange for the first time, but the hedge there was not matched, it seems (I only tipped Betfair so that's green).
Edited extra bit: on-topic: it's an interesting problem of providing fair coverage to minor parties. I do think focusing on the electoral results from last time is perhaps the least worst option as it's least open to gerrymandering, bias or the vagaries of opinion polls.
Con is rock solid for 4 weeks in a row at just over 46.
Lab is up 3 from 26 to 29.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I8s2PaGt5Tv6jHgXBRqqZsqU1Qh28CaOdiBDok6Ty5c/edit#gid=1573382235
Southern Observer said:
'EdM was getting higher than 32% during the 2015 GE campaign.'
On the other hand if the methodology used in 2015 was unchanged , this poll would probably be giving Labour a 34% vote share.
1. I don't like Jeremy
2. I don't want Theresa to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***THOUGHT PROCESS ENDS***
3. All those extra votes mean Jeremy polls better than any Labour leader since Blair
4. Jeremy claims mandate from the people to stay on and complete the Socialist Revolution
***FIVE YEARS LATER***
5. I don't like Diane
6. I don't want Boris to have a landslide majority, so I'll vote Labour anyway
***REPEAT UNTIL HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE***
Except for me of course.
https://capx.co/heres-what-jeremy-corbyn-really-thinks-about-foreign-policy/
I saw a comment from Roger on last thread - he in particular needs to read this
Ultimately the problem here is tribalism, which Labour is particularly guilty of. Never kissed a Tory, Theresa May eats babies, etc.
We are testing the hatstand-with-a-red-rosette theory to destruction here, but the polls seem to be indicating we are entering an eerie twilight world where Labour retains its 2015 votes plus packs on a fair few from the far left.
I'm not discounting a polling failure but I was expecting to see Labour doing far worse at this point.
Even those who dislike Corbyn seem to like his manifesto. It's superficially appealing, it chimes with the populist, anti-establishment times, and I wouldn't put it past 32% of the population to either believe a) there's a magic money tree or b) things are so bad now, they can't get any worse.
There are a lot of parallels between the Conservative 2017 campaign and the 2016 stronger in campaign. It's all 'why risk it' and 'you're safer staying with the status quo' when in fact as we already know a huge number of people are fed up with what they see as declining living standards over the past decade or more and are willing to take a gamble on pretty much anyone promising them more than what they have now.
And all evidence for many years is that very few people indeed switch directly between Con and Lab .
So there is little scope for Con or Lab to pick up votes. OK, it could be argued they could lose votes to LD or UKIP - but LD seem to have little momentum and it appears almost nobody would switch to UKIP at the moment.
If the Labour Party really does end up with a third of the popular vote at the end of all of this, then I think I'm going to gain some new insight into the Continuity Remainer mindset. Not the extreme, unhinged A C Grayling end of the spectrum, but the more conventional "What the fuck were they all thinking?!" tendency.
Certainly on the basis of national vote share at the last general election, 12.6% vs 3.8%, UKIP would merit more attention than the Greens.
But, of course, as a Green supporter I think this is blatant bias from the BBC, and nothing less than giving Caroline Lucas an uninterrupted slot on every news bulletin will serve to redress the imbalance...