The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
You are right, of course. My post was sadly unfunny.
Robert, may I digress?
We've had the opinion of one distinguished Hampstead resident, Cyclefree, on the constituency odds, and I've spouted my own views, based as they are on my soundings on the Heath. What say you?
Tulip is 4/1. Sounds about right?
My wife, who has never voted Labour, is voting Tulip.
Read into that what you will.
It's obvious that she likes flower names, BUT I wonder if she'd vote labour if the candidate was named Hyacinth.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dumbartonshire.
I think that you may be right that LD chances are slightly overstated in Dumbartonshire and slightly understated in Fife.
But saying "other than their 2015 performance" does have an element of "other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" about it.
The 2015 election did show Jo Swinson was a very strong candidate in terms of her vote share holding up surprisingly well in the circumstances. The fact she has been MP also puts her in a strong position on tactical votes from Conservative and Labour. The NE Fife Lib Dem candidate may well have her merits too - but that's untested, and she's not in as strong a position on tactical voting.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
B
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do yl
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
No because you are of a particular demographic: rich. The rich can do a lot of stuff because they fancy it that most people can't. Buy a Bentley, live in Primrose Hill, found avant-garde art movements, vote Brexit.
You were a rich, well-informed Brexiteer. Proves nothing.
Tsnip
But the people WERE bothered enough to vote. LEAVE got 17.4 million votes, more than any other political cause in all of British history (and more than voted STAY in the EEC in 1975).
So we're LEAVING. And now I really am WORKING. Anon.
I hope it is a productive session.
You seem to have switched horses from your original premise which was along the lines of "I am very well informed, if everyone had been as well informed as me they would have voted Leave."
But we will pick this up later because I must go also. To canvass.
No, you just completely and rather dimly failed to recognise the sarcasm in my comment, nor the thrust: which is that a referendum under universal suffrage is exactly that. Everyone gets an equal say - it doesn't matter how smart or thick you are, how rich or poor. But once snooty Remoaners start saying the Leavers are too ill-informed to be allowed a vote, I am then permitted to point out that I am even better informed than the Remoaners, so why should I let THEM have a say? Etc
Enjoy your canvassing.
Not quite. 16 - 17 year olds didn't get a say - even though they will live through the consequences longer than the rest of us.
Bermondsey and Old Southwark Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion East Dunbartonshire Edinburgh West Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Orkney and Shetland Sheffield, Hallam Twickenham Westmorland and Lonsdale
I would put Southport and Norfolk North above Carshalton in terms of "likely to hold". Using a simple Conservative + (66% * UKIP) vs LD, then they are much more likely to hold either than Carshalton. My personal guesstimate would involve replacing C&W with Norfolk North.
My other question is about East Dumbartonshire. Using an amalgam of the Scottish locals and the Holyrood 2016, you'd hand Fife NE to the LDs but not East Dumbartonshire, and - indeed - you'd reckon Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was on a knife edge. Other than their 2015 performance, there's no reason to expect the LDs to do well in East Dunbartonshire.
Jo Swinson is a cut above the average candidate though. I've not bet on her, but I reckon she'll do it ! Surely she can peel some soft Tory/Labour votes ?
Worth a flutter as next LibDem leader? Time they had a woman. 3/1 last time I looked - which seemed a bit on low side for the risk to me.
Not sure when you looked. She's 16-1 at Hills now... which is good value.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
The idea of a Westminster with both Vince Cable and Sir Ed Davey back is profoundly depressing.....
It would be for you. Most people would be glad.
Most?
Six people. Six people would be glad of both Cable and Davey being re-elected. And it's just two people if we exclude them and their spouses.
Presumably, if they are re-elected, then pretty much by definition a plurality of the voters in Twickenham and Kingston respectively would be glad? Unless those two places are particularly self-flagellating, which is possible but fairly unlikely.
I think there's a huge danger in fervently believing that your own views are very widely shared - either pro-Cable/Davey, anti-Cable/Davey, or on any other subject really - it's normally pretty delusional, and you'll end up disappointed.
You are right, of course. My post was sadly unfunny.
Robert, may I digress?
We've had the opinion of one distinguished Hampstead resident, Cyclefree, on the constituency odds, and I've spouted my own views, based as they are on my soundings on the Heath. What say you?
Tulip is 4/1. Sounds about right?
My wife, who has never voted Labour, is voting Tulip.
Read into that what you will.
Yeah, but she know the Conservative candidate personally. How many do?
I think it's a 'no bet' race - the Tories will win but they're too short to back. If Tulip were 8/1, I'd chance a fiver, but no more.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, that would've been in accordance with the law but would've led to a very, very bad situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
B
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do yl
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
No because you are of a particular demographic: rich. The rich can do a lot of stuff because they fancy it that most people can't. Buy a Bentley, live in Primrose Hill, found avant-garde art movements, vote Brexit.
You were a rich, well-informed Brexiteer. Proves nothing.
Tsnip
But the people WERE bothered enough to vote. LEAVE got 17.4 million votes, more than any other political cause in all of British history (and more than voted STAY in the EEC in 1975).
So we're LEAVING. And now I really am WORKING. Anon.
I hope it is a productive session.
You seem to have switched horses from your original premise which was along the lines of "I am very well informed, if everyone had been as well informed as me they would have voted Leave."
But we will pick this up later because I must go also. To canvass.
No, you just completely and rather dimly failed to recognise the sarcasm in my comment, nor the thrust: which is that a referendum under universal suffrage is exactly that. Everyone gets an equal say - it doesn't matter how smart or thick you are, how rich or poor. But once snooty Remoaners start saying the Leavers are too ill-informed to be allowed a vote, I am then permitted to point out that I am even better informed than the Remoaners, so why should I let THEM have a say? Etc
Enjoy your canvassing.
Not quite. 16 - 17 year olds didn't get a say - even though they will live through the consequences longer than the rest of us.
Nah. Your point is utter bollocks. The government sent out a leaflet to all voters saying it's YOUR choice and WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, WE WILL IMPLEMENT YOUR DECISION.
THAT IS THE POINT!
Instead of exercising their constitutional role, they shirked it.
"It's too hard for us, you have a go..." And if it fucks up, we won't get the blame
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
Labour 8372130.45 27.9% on my transition model (Which I'm not sure I entirely believe as it has Lib Dems on ZERO seats at 8.8% of the vote)
I think your one is based on transfers, the error will be higher in that. Labour could indeed get a total like that, but on a lower turnout
I am convinced based on national polls, even 28-29%, Labour will do better. Around 190 seats.
Something rather strange is going on in the South West. Whereas, the Labour vote was 20% higher than the LD vote in GE2015, on this, it is 34% higher.
Did the 2015 calamity break the Liberal anti-Tory credential there ? Of course, that means years of Tory domination there.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
O/T I'll be out of the UK at the time of the election. I'm worried that I won't be able to log into any betting sites - any advice/guidance would be helpful.
Nah. Your point is utter bollocks. The government sent out a leaflet to all voters saying it's YOUR choice and WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, WE WILL IMPLEMENT YOUR DECISION.
THAT IS THE POINT!
Instead of exercising their constitutional role, they shirked it.
"It's too hard for us, you have a go..." And if it fucks up, we won't get the blame
... and if it does, we won't even give you a chance to change your minds.
O/T I'll be out of the UK at the time of the election. I'm worried that I won't be able to log into any betting sites - any advice/guidance would be helpful.
Depends which country....VPN from some works fine, others are more strict.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
Margin of error must be absolutely enormous on those micro-samples.
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
Labour 8372130.45 27.9% on my transition model (Which I'm not sure I entirely believe as it has Lib Dems on ZERO seats at 8.8% of the vote)
I think your one is based on transfers, the error will be higher in that. Labour could indeed get a total like that, but on a lower turnout
I am convinced based on national polls, even 28-29%, Labour will do better. Around 190 seats.
Something rather strange is going on in the South West. Whereas, the Labour vote was 20% higher than the LD vote in GE2015, on this, it is 34% higher.
Did the 2015 calamity break the Liberal anti-Tory credential there ? Of course, that means years of Tory domination there.
There was not much sign of Labour voters in the South West CC results
True it does not include Bristol or Swindon but it does include all the other areas of relative Labour strength Exeter , Gloucester , Stroud , Forest of Dean
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
Lose 27 Gain 68... You think the Lib Dems will more than double their 2015 vote share?
@paulwaugh: Get your popcorn ready. Jeremy Paxman to quiz Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (separately) for joint SkyNews/Channel4 #ge17 show Mon May 29th.
He wasn't the Paxo of old in 2015....he is nowhere near as prepped as Andrew Neil.
half term week again!!! I'm going to miss everything,
I have made one last check and I do come up with this anomaly.
My spreadsheet shows LAB GE2015 total as 9,347,274
I have only entered swings to each party by region [ in other words, the turnout is assumed the same ].
The new total is 8,703,778
A reduction of 6.88%. I have not seen a single opinion poll which has Labour on 24.3% !!!
The regional poll gives Labour +1% in the South East [ why ??? ] and +4% in the SW. I can understand that. Maybe, we are beginning to see a historical change. Labour also gained votes in 2015.
But in all the other regions, Labour are in minus and sometimes big.
Yet, we are seeing Labour vote around 29-31%.
The regional polls in total are around, minimum, 5% off as far as Labour are concerned. ly.
At a first estimate, you are confusing percentage change with percentage point change. A reduction of the Labour vote to 24% would be a loss of about a fifth of their vote.
I get it, thanks ! I could not see how they could be that wrong. So a 6.88% reduction on 31.2% = 29.05%.
O/T I'll be out of the UK at the time of the election. I'm worried that I won't be able to log into any betting sites - any advice/guidance would be helpful.
Depends which country....VPN from some works fine, others are more strict.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, t situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
De
oster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
Nah. Your point is utter bollocks. The government sent out a leaflet to all voters saying it's YOUR choice and WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, WE WILL IMPLEMENT YOUR DECISION.
Those were the government's exact words. That was the explicit promise made by HMG. Going back on that would have destroyed any remaining faith in democracy, it would have been a phenomenally dangerous error and a grievous moral disgrace.
I'm sorry you lost, I'm sorry this causes you pain, but the fact is people are hurt by political decisions all the time. Wipe your tears, remember you're British, and man up. And let us end this debate before we fall out further.
The majority of MPs were against Brexit. What was the Government doing by promising to implement a decision that did not have a Parliamentary majority? Isn't that usurping the power of Parliament?
But of course it was in a fix once it got the wrong answer so it kind of had to go with it, and our MPs kind of let it go rather than stand up and be counted.
And I've fallen out with nobody. I'm sad about Brexit, but I really do believe that having made our bed we should lie in it. No need for me to 'man up'. I'm supping it up already, and I'll be fine, as will my family, despite the setback.
The majority of MPs were against Brexit. What was the Government doing by promising to implement a decision that did not have a Parliamentary majority? Isn't that usurping the power of Parliament?
But of course it was in a fix once it got the wrong answer so it kind of had to go with it, and our MPs kind of let it go rather than stand up and be counted.
And I've fallen out with nobody. I'm sad about Brexit, but I really do believe that having made our bed we should lie in it. No need for me to 'man up'. I'm supping it up already, and I'll be fine, as will my family, despite the setback.
The majority of Parliament voted for a referendum.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
Lose 27 Gain 64... You think the Lib Dems will more than double their 2015 vote share?
Have they ever had any bad news polling wise?
Why do you say those figures imply LDs doubling their 2015 vote share you need some Maths tuition fast . The start LD figure is circa 150 so those changes would mean a 20% increase in vote share .
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
Lose 27 Gain 64... You think the Lib Dems will more than double their 2015 vote share?
Have they ever had any bad news polling wise?
Why do you say those figures imply LDs doubling their 2015 vote share you need some Maths tuition fast . The start LD figure is circa 150 so those changes would mean a 20% increase in vote share .
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
Lose 27 Gain 64... You think the Lib Dems will more than double their 2015 vote share?
Have they ever had any bad news polling wise?
Why do you say those figures imply LDs doubling their 2015 vote share you need some Maths tuition fast . The start LD figure is circa 150 so those changes would mean a 20% increase in vote share .
The majority of MPs were against Brexit. What was the Government doing by promising to implement a decision that did not have a Parliamentary majority? Isn't that usurping the power of Parliament?
But of course it was in a fix once it got the wrong answer so it kind of had to go with it, and our MPs kind of let it go rather than stand up and be counted.
And I've fallen out with nobody. I'm sad about Brexit, but I really do believe that having made our bed we should lie in it. No need for me to 'man up'. I'm supping it up already, and I'll be fine, as will my family, despite the setback.
The majority of Parliament voted for a referendum.
Did the referendum have to be binding? Seems a very silly thing to commit to, as we are now discovering to our cost.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
The majority of Parliament voted for a referendum.
Yes, they voted to shirk their responsibilities.
The majority of voters, as we have seen, wanted to Leave the EU. There was no realistic way of this ever happening unless we had a referendum, as the political class, like many other well off professionals, wanted to Remain.
How can people complain when the right outcome has been reached? The public want a Tory government in charge of a country that is not in the EU, and that's what we have
The majority of MPs were against Brexit. What was the Government doing by promising to implement a decision that did not have a Parliamentary majority? Isn't that usurping the power of Parliament?
But of course it was in a fix once it got the wrong answer so it kind of had to go with it, and our MPs kind of let it go rather than stand up and be counted.
And I've fallen out with nobody. I'm sad about Brexit, but I really do believe that having made our bed we should lie in it. No need for me to 'man up'. I'm supping it up already, and I'll be fine, as will my family, despite the setback.
The majority of Parliament voted for a referendum.
Did the referendum have to be binding? Seems a very silly thing to commit to, as we are now discovering to our cost.
It wasn't binding, and I don't think it is possible to have a legally binding referendum since you can simply pass a new act amending the old one.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
Aren't they weighted for a reason?
Yes - see Martin Boon where he thinks they may be doing it wrong in response to the 2015 poll errors . He is happy with ICM's Labour figures though .
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
You'd think someone would check that they only voted once but - as far as I can tell - no-one does!
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
Aren't they weighted for a reason?
Yes - see Martin Boon where he thinks they may be doing it wrong in response to the 2015 poll errors . He is happy with ICM's Labour figures though .
That doesn't make the unweighted figure any more correct.
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
Yes if you own a holiday cottage and a town house you can be registered twice but you are only allowed to vote once in a GE .
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
Aren't they weighted for a reason?
Yes - see Martin Boon where he thinks they may be doing it wrong in response to the 2015 poll errors . He is happy with ICM's Labour figures though .
That doesn't make the unweighted figure any more correct.
@BBCScotlandNews: Nicola Sturgeon: I want a seat at #Brexit negotiations #GE2017 bbc.in/2rhLZj6 pic.twitter.com/wmNXcfiiw5
@RuthDavidsonMSP: On which side of the table? twitter.com/BBCScotlandNew…
That doesn't really work as it's being at the table or not that is the important thing.
I dunno.. Sturgeon wants an independent Scotland to join the EU. Why not push for the worse form of Brexit possible to further that ambition.
Bear in mind that an independent Scotland in the EU would have more of an interest than any other current EU member state, including Ireland, in a frictionless trading relationship with England.
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
Yes, and it is permitted to vote in both places in the Locals, but not in National elections as I recall, though how that would be identified, I don't know.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers ) LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain ) LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
But why doesn't the totals change much ? What are ICM putting the LD % at ?
The changes represent around a 20% increase in LD vote share ie the 8 to 10% headline ICM share. You should also remember that each of the last 5 ICM polls has found an increasing number of LD voters but the weighting reduces that number . This poll had 178 LDs reduced to 145 after weighting .
Aren't they weighted for a reason?
Yes - see Martin Boon where he thinks they may be doing it wrong in response to the 2015 poll errors . He is happy with ICM's Labour figures though .
That doesn't make the unweighted figure any more correct.
Time will soon tell us .
Yeah, that didn't go so well for the locals, did it?
@BBCScotlandNews: Nicola Sturgeon: I want a seat at #Brexit negotiations #GE2017 bbc.in/2rhLZj6 pic.twitter.com/wmNXcfiiw5
@RuthDavidsonMSP: On which side of the table? twitter.com/BBCScotlandNew…
That doesn't really work as it's being at the table or not that is the important thing.
I dunno.. Sturgeon wants an independent Scotland to join the EU. Why not push for the worse form of Brexit possible to further that ambition.
Bear in mind that an independent Scotland in the EU would have more of an interest than any other current EU member state, including Ireland, in a frictionless trading relationship with England.
The SNP's primary objective is independence. Such matters can be dealt with further down the road.
O/T I'll be out of the UK at the time of the election. I'm worried that I won't be able to log into any betting sites - any advice/guidance would be helpful.
Depends which country....VPN from some works fine, others are more strict.
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
Yes, and it is permitted to vote in both places in the Locals, but not in National elections as I recall, though how that would be identified, I don't know.
I've tried to get an answer on this in the past, but the best I could get was that returning officers didn't really care what happened outside of their own area.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
Yes, and it is permitted to vote in both places in the Locals, but not in National elections as I recall, though how that would be identified, I don't know.
I've tried to get an answer on this in the past, but the best I could get was that returning officers didn't really care what happened outside of their own area.
IER tied to NI numbers has however reduced the extent of multiple registration, as the criteria are tighter than just having a second property, and would make it easier to investigate any reported cases. Realistically however the biggest risk would be of being shopped, since I cannot imagine anyone bothering to check otherwise.
I think she should have agreed to the debates, but that's such a weaksauce stunt, no matter who does it.
In a coldly political calculation there is no upside for her in debating Corbyn, only risk, given her lead in the polls. If it was close then there would be all to play for in debating. For Corbyn it's almost risk free and nothing but upside to debate.
Put in the unwelcome position of having to converse with a working class person - and let's not forget, the majority of people in Britain self-identify as working class - Theresa May shows herself as the person she is, completely unwilling to move her brain for someone she considers to be social dross. Older readers will remember Gordon Brown behaving similarly, thereby losing the 2010 election.
That should be the story. Theresa May may not be super-bright, but she isn't stupid. I'm quite sure that like almost any educated person, if she thought about it for one second she would know the difference between being slow on the uptake (having learning difficulties) and being mentally ill. She is basically f***ed if she's going to listen to a prole.
Instead we get a poncy statement from Matt Zarb-Cousin that May's apparent confusion shows her as “not exactly exuding competence”. Tell you what, Matt, you may think litotes is sophisticated but you just sound like an idiot. You sound almost as up yourself as the person you're criticising.
Is there anyone in the Labour party who's got a clue how to run this fight? Come on Seumas! Or do I have to fly to London and knock your head into your desk until you acquire some clue?
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
Yes, but we might have left the EU in different circumstances. The Government, supported by Parliament, might have concluded that membership of the EU was no longer in our best interests and that we ought to leave, but in view of the heavy consequences a referendum might be appropriate.
That isn't what happened here. The Government and a majority of MPs thought leaving was a bad idea but nevertheless the decision was tossed over to the public.
That's not sensible. Nor is it democracy. It's populism, the shortcomings of which have been well illustrated by this episode.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
No, people have had 44 years of being in the EU. They know how it works.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
No, people have had 44 years of being in the EU. They know how it works.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
Tulip Siddiq was canvassing in my street last week. She came across as engaging and feisty and rather fun. I was impressed by her willingness to debate with me (and others in my household). Were it not for the Corbyn factor - and based on my impressions of her (and what I know of what she has done as an MP) - I might even be tempted to vote for her. I would not be heartbroken if she remained as my MP.
Her line is this:-
1. Nominating Corbyn was a mistake. 2. He will be gone after the election. 3. Cooper, Starmer or Jarvis will be the likely candidates. 4. May will win. 5. Important that she does not get such an enormous win that there is no effective opposition. 6. If Hampstead remains Labour she, Tulip, will be one of the MPs providing such opposition, particularly in relation to Brexit. 7. I should think of the seat rather than Corbyn.
I can understand her strategy. It makes sense for her - and it may succeed, though it will be tight.
But - and it is a very big but indeed - every vote for Labour will be taken by Corbyn as a vote for him and will make it less likely that he will go.
So 2. won't happen. And if it does (or even if it doesn't) Labour have proved inept at no. 6.
I simply do not want to risk Corbyn using votes for Labour (even if they are given in spite of him rather than because of him) as a reason for him to stay in power and continue his destruction of the Labour party. So much as I liked Tulip and admired her willingness to fight for her seat (in all the time Glenda Jackson was MP I never sight nor sound of her) I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a Labour party which, collectively, has lost its moral compass - sad as that is for the decent people (and there are some - even though some of them have shown all the toughness of marshmallows) in it.
Corbyn and his particular brand of illiberal leftist politics need to be crushed. This is no time for sentimentality just because Corbyn speaks softly, makes jam and likes gardening. Corbynism is a virus which is destroying a once great and fundamentally decent party. That is a shame for us all, regardless of whether or not we support it.
I am convinced it is students that are driving the bump we have seen in Labour's polling numbers.
People make the mistake that these students will not vote. They will. But students are not all of 18-24 year olds. Those "not interested" will not vote.
Apologies but I feel compelled to do my 'student turnout warning'.
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
You mean the electorate figure for general elections includes people twice if they are registered in multiple places? You'd think that would be accounted for.
Yes, and it is permitted to vote in both places in the Locals, but not in National elections as I recall, though how that would be identified, I don't know.
I've tried to get an answer on this in the past, but the best I could get was that returning officers didn't really care what happened outside of their own area.
IER tied to NI numbers has however reduced the extent of multiple registration, as the criteria are tighter than just having a second property, and would make it easier to investigate any reported cases. Realistically however the biggest risk would be of being shopped, since I cannot imagine anyone bothering to check otherwise.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
Yes, but we might have left the EU in different circumstances. The Government, supported by Parliament, might have concluded that membership of the EU was no longer in our best interests and that we ought to leave, but in view of the heavy consequences a referendum might be appropriate.
That isn't what happened here. The Government and a majority of MPs thought leaving was a bad idea but nevertheless the decision was tossed over to the public.
That's not sensible. Nor is it democracy. It's populism, the shortcomings of which have been well illustrated by this episode.
Yes, this is my complaint about the referendum too. Referendums should only be held where the government wishes to make a significant change from the status quo and believes that explicit popular consent is required. The people either approve the change or stick with the status quo. When it's the other way round and the government are telling people to approve the status quo, while an insurgent campaign is telling people to vote for an undefined revolution, it can only end in either constitutional chaos or bitterness.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
Strangely, I think I'd be on SeanT's side on that one and regard such a shock second referendum as an unprincipled U-turn, but then May already has a track record for such manoeuvres so it couldn't be ruled out.
Not sure it would do much good anyway. The damage has already been done, hasn't it?
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
No, people have had 44 years of being in the EU. They know how it works.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
Implying the EU is static and unchanging.
No, implying the EU evolves in a manner to which people are already accustomed.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
Yes, but we might have left the EU in different circumstances. The Government, supported by Parliament, might have concluded that membership of the EU was no longer in our best interests and that we ought to leave, but in view of the heavy consequences a referendum might be appropriate.
That isn't what happened here. The Government and a majority of MPs thought leaving was a bad idea but nevertheless the decision was tossed over to the public.
That's not sensible. Nor is it democracy. It's populism, the shortcomings of which have been well illustrated by this episode.
Isn't populism the inevitable consequence of democracy? Especially in a FPTP system?
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, t situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
But membership of the EU? Just how many people do you know who fully understood the implications when voting? I didn't. I didn't even think about Gibraltar, Scotland, Northern Ireland, hard borders, soft borders, WTO terms and a host of other relevant considerations. And by comparison with the average voter I think I'm pretty well informed if I say so myself. Have you tried discussing the matter outside PB? It's truly incredible what some people think. Some even believed the infamous poster on the side of the bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
Fact is, I DID think about Gibraltar, Ulster, Scotland, WTO and all the rest of it. I've been thinking about this European stuff for 30 years (as you will know from our previous debates dating back a decade on PB). Indeed from 1990 on I was an absolute EU obsessive - eg. I read the proposed EU Constitution, in toto, twice, for a Telegraph article in 2003. Who else has done that?! Certainly not Ken Clarke, who didn't read it once, if his remarks on EU Treaties are anything to go by, yet felt able to airily and confidently wave it through, ditto Maastricht.
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
That's a reason not to have a referendum, it's not a reason to hold a referendum and then ignore the result.
If that materialises, the Tories will have a field day in suburban London because the Labour vote will be very heavily concentrated in places like Haringey, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham.
If I am allowed. Bollocks !
If true, then Conservatives must be leading with Asian Brits, they would gain in London; Harrow west, Brentford and Isleworth, Enfield North (tho they will GAIN this regardless), and Ilford North. With a very outside chance of a GAIN in Brent North.....I know this last one sounds farfetched but I think Hindu and Sikh voters are becoming Tory over the long run and will give aspiration killing Corbyn a very wide berth.
Ealing central is still a toss up though because of the lage European vote many who will be eligible to vote in a GE by now and will be angry over Brexit.
Comments
But saying "other than their 2015 performance" does have an element of "other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?" about it.
The 2015 election did show Jo Swinson was a very strong candidate in terms of her vote share holding up surprisingly well in the circumstances. The fact she has been MP also puts her in a strong position on tactical votes from Conservative and Labour. The NE Fife Lib Dem candidate may well have her merits too - but that's untested, and she's not in as strong a position on tactical voting.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: On which side of the table? twitter.com/BBCScotlandNew…
LDs lose 15 2015 voters to Con ( 6 leavers 9 remainers ) but gain 28 in return ( 2 leavers 26 remainers )
LDs lose 11 2015 voters to Lab ( 2 leave 9 remain ) but gain 34 in returns ( 4 leave 29 remain )
LDs lose 1 2015 leave voter to UKIP but gain 4 UKIP leavers and 2 UKIP remainers in return
I think it's a 'no bet' race - the Tories will win but they're too short to back. If Tulip were 8/1, I'd chance a fiver, but no more.
One trusts Lord Ashdown will remember to bake a hat before offering his views.
Instead of exercising their constitutional role, they shirked it.
"It's too hard for us, you have a go..."
And if it fucks up, we won't get the blameGiven the result isn't expected to be as close as 2015, there was doubt if it was wise to spend so much money on it by the broadcasters.
I am convinced based on national polls, even 28-29%, Labour will do better. Around 190 seats.
Something rather strange is going on in the South West. Whereas, the Labour vote was 20% higher than the LD vote in GE2015, on this, it is 34% higher.
Did the 2015 calamity break the Liberal anti-Tory credential there ? Of course, that means years of Tory domination there.
https://twitter.com/julianhuppert/status/864129548354543616
Cornwall 8%
Wiltshire 9%
Devon 15%
Dorset 12%
Glos 14%
Somerset 9%
True it does not include Bristol or Swindon but it does include all the other areas of relative Labour strength Exeter , Gloucester , Stroud , Forest of Dean
Have they ever had any bad news polling wise?
That is believable.
But of course it was in a fix once it got the wrong answer so it kind of had to go with it, and our MPs kind of let it go rather than stand up and be counted.
And I've fallen out with nobody. I'm sad about Brexit, but I really do believe that having made our bed we should lie in it. No need for me to 'man up'. I'm supping it up already, and I'll be fine, as will my family, despite the setback.
I called Cambridge spectaculary wrong last time out - as I rated the candidate as terrible - old, grey, hard left and union backed.
But now he's the perfect epitome of the Labour party leader - who knows which way that could cause it to break..
How can people complain when the right outcome has been reached? The public want a Tory government in charge of a country that is not in the EU, and that's what we have
The national turnout figures for 18-24's are always 'wrong'. Many of this group are students who are registered to vote in two constituencies. Assuming they only vote in one of these (!) then their national turnout rate is only 50% even though they have been out and done their democratic duty.
The other thing to note about students this election is that most of them will be back home as term will have ended in many of the larger universities.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/864151215063617536
Corbyn spin docs every day: "We don't comment on historical quotes."
Oh come on.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
That should be the story. Theresa May may not be super-bright, but she isn't stupid. I'm quite sure that like almost any educated person, if she thought about it for one second she would know the difference between being slow on the uptake (having learning difficulties) and being mentally ill. She is basically f***ed if she's going to listen to a prole.
Instead we get a poncy statement from Matt Zarb-Cousin that May's apparent confusion shows her as “not exactly exuding competence”. Tell you what, Matt, you may think litotes is sophisticated but you just sound like an idiot. You sound almost as up yourself as the person you're criticising.
Is there anyone in the Labour party who's got a clue how to run this fight? Come on Seumas! Or do I have to fly to London and knock your head into your desk until you acquire some clue?
That isn't what happened here. The Government and a majority of MPs thought leaving was a bad idea but nevertheless the decision was tossed over to the public.
That's not sensible. Nor is it democracy. It's populism, the shortcomings of which have been well illustrated by this episode.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
Tulip Siddiq was canvassing in my street last week. She came across as engaging and feisty and rather fun. I was impressed by her willingness to debate with me (and others in my household). Were it not for the Corbyn factor - and based on my impressions of her (and what I know of what she has done as an MP) - I might even be tempted to vote for her. I would not be heartbroken if she remained as my MP.
Her line is this:-
1. Nominating Corbyn was a mistake.
2. He will be gone after the election.
3. Cooper, Starmer or Jarvis will be the likely candidates.
4. May will win.
5. Important that she does not get such an enormous win that there is no effective opposition.
6. If Hampstead remains Labour she, Tulip, will be one of the MPs providing such opposition, particularly in relation to Brexit.
7. I should think of the seat rather than Corbyn.
I can understand her strategy. It makes sense for her - and it may succeed, though it will be tight.
But - and it is a very big but indeed - every vote for Labour will be taken by Corbyn as a vote for him and will make it less likely that he will go.
So 2. won't happen. And if it does (or even if it doesn't) Labour have proved inept at no. 6.
I simply do not want to risk Corbyn using votes for Labour (even if they are given in spite of him rather than because of him) as a reason for him to stay in power and continue his destruction of the Labour party. So much as I liked Tulip and admired her willingness to fight for her seat (in all the time Glenda Jackson was MP I never sight nor sound of her) I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a Labour party which, collectively, has lost its moral compass - sad as that is for the decent people (and there are some - even though some of them have shown all the toughness of marshmallows) in it.
Corbyn and his particular brand of illiberal leftist politics need to be crushed. This is no time for sentimentality just because Corbyn speaks softly, makes jam and likes gardening. Corbynism is a virus which is destroying a once great and fundamentally decent party. That is a shame for us all, regardless of whether or not we support it.
Not sure it would do much good anyway. The damage has already been done, hasn't it?
Ealing central is still a toss up though because of the lage European vote many who will be eligible to vote in a GE by now and will be angry over Brexit.