I'm pleased and not in the least surprised that 65% favour hanging, I'm perfectly happy to execute Ian Huntley and Lee Rigby's killers. The problem is that juries can be understandably hesitant where the death penalty is concerned and might let off some very dangerous people.
That said its a futile argument, we're never going to bring back hanging.
Before my time but it's been said that was the crucial argument in abolishing capital punishment: that juries had become reluctant to convict.
Dianne Abbott states that her 3 years as a graduate trainee in the home office qualifies her for home sec
Oh, it just gets better. Not only did Cambridge allow someone who can't do the most basic arithmetic to pass one of their degrees, but the Home Office made her a graduate trainee.
Corbyn's lack of interest in the EU, and Left Leaver sympathies are one of his strengths now. It is what stops this being the Brexit election that May wanted. Considering that it is the justification, Brexit is not being discussed even by its proponents.
What makes this an interesting yet difficult to predict election is how the electoral shifts work out:
1) Will former DNV turnout for Labour?
2) Will anti Tory tactical voting occur in significant ways?
3) Will former kippers become Mayflies, or will they disperse to where they were (going Lab, DNV and rump hard right UKIP)?
4) Who will benefit most from the receding SNP tide (I have no doubt that a more diverse range of political views will benefit Scotland)
5) Will tribal Labour return to the fold particularly in Wales and North?
6) Will Brexit become an issue at all? it isnt at the moment astonishingly.
As such I am forcasting a wide margin of error around my 76 seat majority prediction. +/- 50 seats.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
What a depressing poll. 65%/21% want to bring back hanging.
There is nothing in the small print that suggests this is going to be anything other than an epic landslide for the Tories. They score 43%/24% on the economy and that makes it game set and match.
Only the dilettante wealthy can afford the luxury of voting on social issues and there aren't enough of them. Brexit is an exception but thanks to Labour's ambivalence that has effectively been neutralised. Terrorism is a seven day wonder and most realise it isn't in the control of politicians.
I agree about hanging. Noone has the right to take someone elses life. There have been too many wrongful executions.. America is littered with them.
Support for capital punishment tends to rise sharply after an atrocity, before falling back.
Indeed but its still terrifying so many people think like that.
If the public was asked, I suspect you would get a very large majority in favour of hanging all suicide bombers....
Yeah, they are that dumb. How do you hang a dead suicide bomber. in any event depriving them of their liberty forever is a much worse punishment imho
One of the finest men in the history of this country was executed after his death.
Poor Oliver Cromwell, given a posthumous execution because he believed in democracy and egalitarianism.
As a fan of Cromwell, I must say that's a, er, a somewhat simpLe rose tinted interpretation of the period and a man with complex and sometimes contradictory ideas.
And does no one lament the same happening to ireton and Bradshaw? Sentencing a judge of all people because they did not like his judgements!
Do any polling companies ask the recipients 'on a scale of 0/10 how interested are you in politics?', or similar questions that may filter out the over engaged?
Yougov does. I don't know what they do with it, but I did read last week that most pollsters try and search out the less interested, who they think are harder to reach. If so this suggests the degree of interest is used as an additional factor to try and 'balance' the sample.
Certainly I always express a high degree of interest, and VI polls have been fairly sparse this time!
Everything points to the midterm for the incoming Tory government being brutal. There is enough grief hardwired into the things it will have to do, and considerable risk from external events, particularly the likelihood of economic downturn.
We are due, and Brexit will be painful too. I still dont get why May waited so long to decide to do this, as all the readies would have applied say 2 months earlier.
It certainly would have been sensible to have triggered Article 50 with its countdown clock AFTER the GE and not before. She should also have put Article 50 in front of parliament straight away instead of wasting time on futile and anti democratic court cases. She should not have wasted energy unnecessarily creating new bureaucratic structures and departments to substitute for the Foreign Office whose job it is to do this kind of work. She should have used that time to shape the agenda rather than just allow the EU to do it for her.She should have put the best team in place, not just placeholders simply to ensure they piss outside the tent rather inside it. She should have been out there in Europe selling our partners on their need to include Britain in their Brexited future, so they want to give us a relatively better deal.
I can't think of anything Theresa May has done right on Brexit so far.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Except that your interest costs go up because investors will want a default risk premium because you may just unilaterally repudiate your commitments in future.
And the cost of big investments such as the Super Sewer will be on balance sheet do over time will be skimped on
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Indeed. Conservatives are running with scare stories about Labour raising tax and having an uncosted manifesto when it is the their own manifesto the low tax hawks should fear.
Labour's manifesto commitments are predicated on the following:
1. Tax rises for high earners, who already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of the total income tax take, and are also the most mobile section of society. 2. Substantial tax rises on company profits. 3. A vast amount of extra borrowing, almost certainly at elevated rates of interest because the markets distrust Leftist administrations, which will ultimately all have to be repaid.
So, the wealthy taxpayers emigrate and take their taxes with them; the corporations cut investment and jobs in the UK to balance their books; and an ever-increasing proportion of Government income is spent servicing the national debt. We should also remember that the pension triple lock is to be maintained and planned increases in the state pension age are to be scrapped.
Fewer workers as a whole. Fewer highly-paid workers as a percentage of that total. More working-age people dependent on benefits. More, and more expensive, pensioners. Higher debts, and higher costs to service them. All of the money to deal with these problems can only come from spending cuts and tax rises, all against the background of a tanking economy and interest rates being jacked up repeatedly in a (probably only partially effective) effort to underpin the value of Sterling.
Anybody who doesn't think that a Hard Left Government won't lead to a high debt, high tax, high unemployment and high inflation economy in pretty short order is probably kidding themselves.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I don't see how I could be being unfair in giving the SNP a compliment. Scottish politics is disengaging from rUK, partly for the reasons you have said. When the majority of the decisions that people actually care about are made at Holyrood it is inevitable that these issues will be debated in the campaign even if MPs have increasingly little say on the matters being argued about. As a Unionist I find it a concern but an inevitable consequence of a high level of devolution.
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
David , if you look at the pathetic Scottish conservative election policies, copy of London and SNPBAD it is unbelievable that they can even get one MP. We have some real numpties in Scotland, greedy grasping Tory ones and jsut stupid easily fooled morons and of course the Tories are the champions of teh knuckle dragging idiots who liv ein the past, they will come a cropper over that. Ruthie is only in it for herself and first whiff of a decent gig in London it will be F*** Scotland I am off.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Both good policies in principle, possibly with tweaking, being bold in telling people free stuff cannot be afforded and social care needs a solution more detailed than 'we will create a national care service'. It was poorly handled though.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Indeed. Conservatives are running with scare stories about Labour raising tax and having an uncosted manifesto when it is the their own manifesto the low tax hawks should fear.
Labour's manifesto commitments are predicated on the following:
1. Tax rises for high earners, who already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of the total income tax take, and are also the most mobile section of society. 2. Substantial tax rises on company profits. 3. A vast amount of extra borrowing, almost certainly at elevated rates of interest because the markets distrust Leftist administrations, which will ultimately all have to be repaid.
So, the wealthy taxpayers emigrate and take their taxes with them; the corporations cut investment and jobs in the UK to balance their books; and an ever-increasing proportion of Government income is spent servicing the national debt. We should also remember that the pension triple lock is to be maintained and planned increases in the state pension age are to be scrapped.
Fewer workers as a whole. Fewer highly-paid workers as a percentage of that total. More working-age people dependent on benefits. More, and more expensive, pensioners. Higher debts, and higher costs to service them. All of the money to deal with these problems can only come from spending cuts and tax rises, all against the background of a tanking economy and interest rates being jacked up repeatedly in a (probably only partially effective) effort to underpin the value of Sterling.
Anybody who doesn't think that a Hard Left Government won't lead to a high debt, high tax, high unemployment and high inflation economy in pretty short order is probably kidding themselves.
Labour would obviously have to balance the books with a wealth tax, the wealth being less mobile than the income. Just ironic that the Conservatives beat them to it, if as a charge.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
Everything points to the midterm for the incoming Tory government being brutal. There is enough grief hardwired into the things it will have to do, and considerable risk from external events, particularly the likelihood of economic downturn.
We are due, and Brexit will be painful too. I still dont get why May waited so long to decide to do this, as all the readies would have applied say 2 months earlier.
It certainly would have been sensible to have triggered Article 50 with its countdown clock AFTER the GE and not before. She should also have put Article 50 in front of parliament straight away instead of wasting time on futile and anti democratic court cases. She should not have wasted energy unnecessarily creating new bureaucratic structures and departments to substitute for the Foreign Office whose job it is to do this kind of work. She should have used that time to shape the agenda rather than just allow the EU to do it for her.She should have put the best team in place, not just placeholders simply to ensure they piss outside the tent rather inside it. She should have been out there in Europe selling our partners on their need to include Britain in their Brexited future, so they want to give us a relatively better deal.
I can't think of anything Theresa May has done right on Brexit so far.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Indeed. Conservatives are running with scare stories about Labour raising tax and having an uncosted manifesto when it is the their own manifesto the low tax hawks should fear.
Labour's manifesto commitments are predicated on the following:
1. Tax rises for high earners, who already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of the total income tax take, and are also the most mobile section of society. 2. Substantial tax rises on company profits. 3. A vast amount of extra borrowing, almost certainly at elevated rates of interest because the markets distrust Leftist administrations, which will ultimately all have to be repaid.
So, the wealthy taxpayers emigrate and take their taxes with them; the corporations cut investment and jobs in the UK to balance their books; and an ever-increasing proportion of Government income is spent servicing the national debt. We should also remember that the pension triple lock is to be maintained and planned increases in the state pension age are to be scrapped.
Fewer workers as a whole. Fewer highly-paid workers as a percentage of that total. More working-age people dependent on benefits. More, and more expensive, pensioners. Higher debts, and higher costs to service them. All of the money to deal with these problems can only come from spending cuts and tax rises, all against the background of a tanking economy and interest rates being jacked up repeatedly in a (probably only partially effective) effort to underpin the value of Sterling.
Anybody who doesn't think that a Hard Left Government won't lead to a high debt, high tax, high unemployment and high inflation economy in pretty short order is probably kidding themselves.
Leave aside whether your conclusions are right or not, you must surely agree that shows Labour's manifesto is more detailed and costed than the Conservative one. You might not like what is in it, but at least it is there.
Here, in a nutshell, is why so many of us knew that Corbyn was unelectable. It's not what he said about terror this week, it's 40 years of anti-UK posturing and excusing the inexcusable: https://twitter.com/comiskeynathan/status/868732072080355328
I still think many voters out there don't know this stuff about Corbyn. I don't see the downside of banging on about it for the next 11 days - those that hate it will be determined to keep him from power, by going out to vote - while those that don't know might shudder and be more inclined to sit on their hands on the 8th.....
If CCHQ is sending these stories out to their Facebook friends then we must assume Messina is telling them it works, even if there is not much sign of it in the public polls.
That might be the case, but it might just be it is all they have.
Everything points to the midterm for the incoming Tory government being brutal. There is enough grief hardwired into the things it will have to do, and considerable risk from external events, particularly the likelihood of economic downturn.
We are due, and Brexit will be painful too. I still dont get why May waited so long to decide to do this, as all the readies would have applied say 2 months earlier.
It certainly would have been sensible to have triggered Article 50 with its countdown clock AFTER the GE and not before. She should also have put Article 50 in front of parliament straight away instead of wasting time on futile and anti democratic court cases. She should not have wasted energy unnecessarily creating new bureaucratic structures and departments to substitute for the Foreign Office whose job it is to do this kind of work. She should have used that time to shape the agenda rather than just allow the EU to do it for her.She should have put the best team in place, not just placeholders simply to ensure they piss outside the tent rather inside it. She should have been out there in Europe selling our partners on their need to include Britain in their Brexited future, so they want to give us a relatively better deal.
I can't think of anything Theresa May has done right on Brexit so far.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
You've amply demonstrated the genius behind the manisfesto, which by including the WFA and Social Care measures, meant the the removal of the Triple Lock and the tax lock has clearly gone largely unnoticed. Both far more important for the long term financial flexibility afforded to the next Government (and those in the future)
Indeed. Conservatives are running with scare stories about Labour raising tax and having an uncosted manifesto when it is the their own manifesto the low tax hawks should fear.
Labour's manifesto commitments are predicated on the following:
1. Tax rises for high earners, who already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of the total income tax take, and are also the most mobile section of society. 2. Substantial tax rises on company profits. 3. A vast amount of extra borrowing, almost certainly at elevated rates of interest because the markets distrust Leftist administrations, which will ultimately all have to be repaid.
So, the wealthy taxpayers emigrate and take their taxes with them; the corporations cut investment and jobs in the UK to balance their books; and an ever-increasing proportion of Government income is spent servicing the national debt. We should also remember that the pension triple lock is to be maintained and planned increases in the state pension age are to be scrapped.
Fewer workers as a whole. Fewer highly-paid workers as a percentage of that total. More working-age people dependent on benefits. More, and more expensive, pensioners. Higher debts, and higher costs to service them. All of the money to deal with these problems can only come from spending cuts and tax rises, all against the background of a tanking economy and interest rates being jacked up repeatedly in a (probably only partially effective) effort to underpin the value of Sterling.
Anybody who doesn't think that a Hard Left Government won't lead to a high debt, high tax, high unemployment and high inflation economy in pretty short order is probably kidding themselves.
Labour would obviously have to balance the books with a wealth tax, the wealth being less mobile than the income. Just ironic that the Conservatives beat them to it, if as a charge.
Why not throw in exchange controls as well. Because they'll be required.
Do any polling companies ask the recipients 'on a scale of 0/10 how interested are you in politics?', or similar questions that may filter out the over engaged?
Matt Singh has tweeted about this sort of thing today. He sounds doubtful pollsters are picking up representative youngsters. No idea as to his reasoning if that's his thinking, so I'm hoping he has some musings in it before the 8th.
Few other points:
1) Is there a clear difference now between those pollsters who (as I understand it) are adjusting from 2015 via differing methods i.e. turnout v demographic filters? Is this the new phone/online split for 2017?
It seems to be boiling down to oldies in the likes of Nuneaton v youngsters in Ealing. How many of each are there this time round and critically where are they (oldies in Bournemouth and youngies in central Birmingham are not as psephologically valuable as ones in Bristol or Coventry)?
2) Are they now adjusting for who is actually on the register because clearly if you're not on it now you don't count, and no more can be added?
3) Are they putting down some who have voted via post as 11/10 certainty ( you know what I mean).
4) Are we at the point this week if seriously mapping where the senior politicians are going ( as in Cameron's sudden appearance in Yeovil in 2015). I take it May isn't turning up in West Bromwich now but neither should Jezza be knocking on doors in Liverpool. Anybody able to set up "politician tracker" to see where they went exactly?
Perhaps Parliament should pass a law denying the right of suicide bombers to a (religious?) burial. Would that prevent them seeing the virgins in heaven?
Just as a matter of interest - what do female suicide bombers get out of the deal?
I'm not sure but for that matter what would the male suicide bombers do with 72 Ann Widdecombes?
FPT
Roger what to you make of Jezza now ?
Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
Again, I have to ask what problem you are trying to fix with this change, or is it just something you want because it sounds right?
Corbyn's lack of interest in the EU, and Left Leaver sympathies are one of his strengths now. It is what stops this being the Brexit election that May wanted. Considering that it is the justification, Brexit is not being discussed even by its proponents.
What makes this an interesting yet difficult to predict election is how the electoral shifts work out:
1) Will former DNV turnout for Labour?
2) Will anti Tory tactical voting occur in significant ways?
3) Will former kippers become Mayflies, or will they disperse to where they were (going Lab, DNV and rump hard right UKIP)?
4) Who will benefit most from the receding SNP tide (I have no doubt that a more diverse range of political views will benefit Scotland)
5) Will tribal Labour return to the fold particularly in Wales and North?
6) Will Brexit become an issue at all? it isnt at the moment astonishingly.
As such I am forcasting a wide margin of error around my 76 seat majority prediction. +/- 50 seats.
I don't see a lot of betting value at the moment.
1. If it does, it doesn't help much as turnout in Labour seats is below average.
The press propaganda campaign against Corbyn on security etc is well underway now and possibly stalling stalling or reversing the Labour momentum already, so I still think a Theresa majority of 40-60 looks most likely.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I don't see how I could be being unfair in giving the SNP a compliment. Scottish politics is disengaging from rUK, partly for the reasons you have said. When the majority of the decisions that people actually care about are made at Holyrood it is inevitable that these issues will be debated in the campaign even if MPs have increasingly little say on the matters being argued about. As a Unionist I find it a concern but an inevitable consequence of a high level of devolution.
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
David , if you look at the pathetic Scottish conservative election policies, copy of London and SNPBAD it is unbelievable that they can even get one MP. We have some real numpties in Scotland, greedy grasping Tory ones and jsut stupid easily fooled morons and of course the Tories are the champions of teh knuckle dragging idiots who liv ein the past, they will come a cropper over that. Ruthie is only in it for herself and first whiff of a decent gig in London it will be F*** Scotland I am off.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
The x-axis is just number of samples, it isn't correctly spaced for time - as I said it is quick and dirty.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
If you start a month before the election was called then that changes the graph somewhat.
Also it neglects to show that it is largely the Labour vote that has risen. They seem to be hoovering up LDs and those Kippers who hadn't already defected to the Tories. I do wonder if the anti-Corbyn "vote" was something of a chimera. Labour-leaning voters who hate him may have told pollsters they will vote dor someone else as a way of getting him dumped, or just as a knee-jerk reaction. When there is actually a General Election there is no-one else to turn to. Don't forget that tribal Labour voters now hate the Lib Dems more than the Tories, over the Coalition.
The May government has obviously been cobbled together in a hurry following a surprise result in the EURef and it shows. My best hope is that she will be an old fashioned practical Tory, praxis rather than ideology.
The press propaganda campaign against Corbyn on security etc is well underway now and possibly stalling stalling or reversing the Labour momentum already, so I still think a Theresa majority of 40-60 looks most likely.
Given the parameters that TSE has set out, I think a lead of 52-98 would be best. I don't want Nick Timothy thinking that the result vindicates him.
Agree - I'd be perfectly happy with that - enough to govern with but a salutary reminder for any ideologues that Tories and ideology usually ends in tears...
As it is now obvious to everyone butill create some very interesting political dynamics over the coming five years and put a lot more pressure on May to deliver on her promises.
I would disagree. It seems Jezza will raise the Labour vote share, so it will not be him to blame for a May victory. Nonetheless I expect him to be replaced within a couple of years, simply due to age. He may well be an effective LOTO for a period of Brexit.
I reckon on a Tory majority of about 75 myself (76 if that keeps TSE happy!).
TM was a useless and ineffective Home Sec, she has been a petulant and inflexible autocratic PM for nearly a year, and been in charge of a supremely useless campaign team. None of this bodes well for the next few years in office.
Labour's vote share may increase. But England is now a two party country once more. So the best we can say is abysmal Tory leader and PM.
Corbyn never had the confidence of Labour MPs, because they had seen and heard him in action for 40 years. They challenged him last year because he failed totally to lead during the EU referendum and did all he could to undermine the Labour Remain campaign. The result on 8th June will show them to have been entirely correct.
I am somewhat surprised more Tory attacks have not been around that his own MPs dont think he is up to the job. Every labour mp is implicitly saying Corbyn should be pm and Abbott should be home secretary, yet most of them said he could not even do the opposition leader job. Why has that not been focused on more?it plays up the discipline of labour now being a facade.
This interview with Marr of Abbott is the most extreme car crash interview on TV I have ever witnessed
Oh I cannot wait now. Not better than the Police numbers one?
There are other corbynistas, all of whom are better than her, why does she get sent?
Police numbers interview was a breeze compared to Abbott on Marr today
Should be compulsive viewing for all the electorate
Should be compulsory. Will be compulsive. Thing is, she's so ridiculous it would be reasonable for voters to presume that she couldn't possibly be made Home Secretary if Corbyn actually won. And therefore discount.
Everything points to the midterm for the incoming Tory government being brutal. There is enough grief hardwired into the things it will have to do, and considerable risk from external events, particularly the likelihood of economic downturn.
We are due, and Brexit will be painful too. I still dont get why May waited so long to decide to do this, as all the readies would have applied say 2 months earlier.
It certainly would have been sensible to have triggered Article 50 with its countdown clock AFTER the GE and not before. She should also have put Article 50 in front of parliament straight away instead of wasting time on futile and anti democratic court cases. She should not have wasted energy unnecessarily creating new bureaucratic structures and departments to substitute for the Foreign Office whose job it is to do this kind of work. She should have used that time to shape the agenda rather than just allow the EU to do it for her.She should have put the best team in place, not just placeholders simply to ensure they piss outside the tent rather inside it. She should have been out there in Europe selling our partners on their need to include Britain in their Brexited future, so they want to give us a relatively better deal.
I can't think of anything Theresa May has done right on Brexit so far.
To be honest I think the hunting vote, if there is one, could be the nadir. Britain is a nation of animal lovers and the polls show massive opposition to its return, including among many elderly Tories. Yet with a big majority the Tories will be under pressure to restore. The public outcry is going to be immense.
If May has any sense she will try and put it off. My conspiracy theory is that the manifesto proposals were carefully crafted to keep the majority down to the level at which the hunters judge it isn't worth pushing restoration.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Non tradeable bonds. Then you can defer the interest or principal repayment and it becomes a matter of default rather than anything else.
If they were to try and implement this it would end up in court (and would shut down the capital markets)
Most well documented finance and lease documents will have expropriation based events of default. Would creditors have an interest in waiving these?
That's a fair point,. I hadn't considered that the government would need to immediately refinance the tens of billions in debt *already* secured against the water companies assets.
Or they could refuse and, like Argentina, be unable to raise money in the international capital markets until the dispute is settled
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
They will have us chipped soon if they get their way, Tories always get round to this, they are the nasty party right enough. Very convenient for them indeeed.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
No, in many ways it is not. If I steal your vote, then unless you are in a marginal constituency, it will mean your MP has a majority of 15,000 instead of 15,002. No loss to you; no profit for me -- and that last part is crucial: cui bono? If I steal your parcel, you are out of pocket and I can sell it down the pub (or more likely on ebay).
Personation is rare, and easy to detect after the event, when you roll up to vote at 9.55 pm and are told you have already voted. Even where there has been vote fraud, it's not usually taken this form outside of Northern Ireland.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Except that your interest costs go up because investors will want a default risk premium because you may just unilaterally repudiate your commitments in future.
And the cost of big investments such as the Super Sewer will be on balance sheet do over time will be skimped on
That would mean sovereign debt should be more expensive than corporate debt. Which is not the case.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I don't see how I could be being unfair in giving the SNP a compliment. Scottish politics is disengaging from rUK, partly for the reasons you have said. When the majority of the decisions that people actually care about are made at Holyrood it is inevitable that these issues will be debated in the campaign even if MPs have increasingly little say on the matters being argued about. As a Unionist I find it a concern but an inevitable consequence of a high level of devolution.
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
David , if you look at the pathetic Scottish conservative election policies, copy of London and SNPBAD it is unbelievable that they can even get one MP. We have some real numpties in Scotland, greedy grasping Tory ones and jsut stupid easily fooled morons and of course the Tories are the champions of teh knuckle dragging idiots who liv ein the past, they will come a cropper over that. Ruthie is only in it for herself and first whiff of a decent gig in London it will be F*** Scotland I am off.
Surely now was an opportunity for a decent London gig?
Interesting comments from Black-Rook re: Plaid. Looking tempting in Chris Bryant's seat and anecdotal evidence to suggest strong support in Labour heartlands in Merthyr, Caerphilly and North Gwent valleys areas.
Despite most recent polling Conservatives still look anecdotally strong in Cardiff, Newport, Bridgend and Swansea. I suspect this support is fairly soft and too many Tory banana skins could save Labour's day in Wales. Locally Andrew Davies and Alun Cairns can be less than gaffe-free!
Do any polling companies ask the recipients 'on a scale of 0/10 how interested are you in politics?', or similar questions that may filter out the over engaged?
Yougov does. I don't know what they do with it, but I did read last week that most pollsters try and search out the less interested, who they think are harder to reach. If so this suggests the degree of interest is used as an additional factor to try and 'balance' the sample.
Certainly I always express a high degree of interest, and VI polls have been fairly sparse this time!
If the pollsters wanted to be a lot more accurate, 90% of respondents used should be 2/10 interested or less
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
The broad argument is that it is discriminatory towards the poor, many of whom lack both passports and driving licences, and these objections would be only partially assuaged if the level of proof were reduced to something more basic than photo ID, e.g. a utility bill. If one half of a married or co-habiting couple pays all of the bills, then what is the other half meant to use - junk mail, perhaps?
The obvious solution to this problem is to resurrect the national ID card scheme, which would compel people to carry the things (the quid pro quo being that they would have to be issued free of charge, because poorer people would struggle to pay for them.) You can see how such a solution would appeal to a securocrat like May - but on the other hand it would be very expensive to implement and administer, highly controversial, and, moreover, it isn't in the Tory manifesto.
I'm a cynic, so I read this as something that sounds like a sensible measure against fraud in theory, but that oh-so-conveniently confers electoral advantage on the Tories in practice. You could say exactly the same thing about boundary change, of course, but I regard that as ironing out an existing unfairness and, therefore, being entirely justifiable. The introduction of ID verification at polling stations, on the other hand, risks creating a new unfairness that did not previously exist.
Using knowledge built up on a graduate (administration according to wik) trainee scheme to help her run the Department was my personal favourite.
I'm sure they taught good transferable skills.
Give me strength. Setting aside for a moment the content of what she says, I must say I've always found abbotts style grating. She's always so offended by questioning, so condescending in her answers. And I know a thing or two about condescension, let me tell you.
@MrHarryCole: Rudd slams Abbott: "I’ve changed my hairstyle a few times too, but i have not changed my view of how to keep the British people safe."
Mike Smithson hasn't changed his hairstyle over the past few .... er .... decades .... or how to keep Britain safe with bar charts and vegetarian quiche.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
They will have us chipped soon if they get their way, Tories always get round to this, they are the nasty party right enough. Very convenient for them indeeed.
And the next thing they will have "named persons" getting children to spy on their parents.
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
The broad argument is that it is discriminatory towards the poor, many of whom lack both passports and driving licences, and these objections would be only partially assuaged if the level of proof were reduced to something more basic than photo ID, e.g. a utility bill. If one half of a married or co-habiting couple pays all of the bills, then what is the other half meant to use - junk mail, perhaps?
The obvious solution to this problem is to resurrect the national ID card scheme, which would compel people to carry the things (the quid pro quo being that they would have to be issued free of charge, because poorer people would struggle to pay for them.) You can see how such a solution would appeal to a securocrat like May - but on the other hand it would be very expensive to implement and administer, highly controversial, and, moreover, it isn't in the Tory manifesto.
I'm a cynic, so I read this as something that sounds like a sensible measure against fraud in theory, but that oh-so-conveniently confers electoral advantage on the Tories in practice. You could say exactly the same thing about boundary change, of course, but I regard that as ironing out an existing unfairness and, therefore, being entirely justifiable. The introduction of ID verification at polling stations, on the other hand, risks creating a new unfairness that did not previously exist.
According to academics the "unfairness" is now in the Tories' favour, on current boundaries. Leaving aside of course the massive plank that is the hardwired unfairness to third parties.
@MrHarryCole: Rudd slams Abbott: "I’ve changed my hairstyle a few times too, but i have not changed my view of how to keep the British people safe."
Just seen that, a fantastic answer.
This election is like Arsenal vs Lincoln City - looked easy at first so people tried to talk up an upset, the big favs look to be struggling for a while... 5-0
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Interesting comments from Black-Rook re: Plaid. Looking tempting in Chris Bryant's seat and anecdotal evidence to suggest strong support in Labour heartlands in Merthyr, Caerphilly and North Gwent valleys areas.
Despite most recent polling Conservatives still look anecdotally strong in Cardiff, Newport, Bridgend and Swansea. I suspect this support is fairly soft and too many Tory banana skins could save Labour's day in Wales. Locally Andrew Davies and Alun Cairns can be less than gaffe-free!
Interesting comments from Black-Rook re: Plaid. Looking tempting in Chris Bryant's seat and anecdotal evidence to suggest strong support in Labour heartlands in Merthyr, Caerphilly and North Gwent valleys areas.
Despite most recent polling Conservatives still look anecdotally strong in Cardiff, Newport, Bridgend and Swansea. I suspect this support is fairly soft and too many Tory banana skins could save Labour's day in Wales. Locally Andrew Davies and Alun Cairns can be less than gaffe-free!
Seems quite possible. Have we had any more Welsh polls? Seems like that tory lead one really spooked thecpkace back into line!
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Have you seen the IFS analysis of both by any chance?
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Actually you may be right on that. I forgot about the second lab document.
It is a lot more ridiculous though. And the reliability of the costings is a separate matter to merely being costed.
Perhaps Parliament should pass a law denying the right of suicide bombers to a (religious?) burial. Would that prevent them seeing the virgins in heaven?
Just as a matter of interest - what do female suicide bombers get out of the deal?
I'm not sure but for that matter what would the male suicide bombers do with 72 Ann Widdecombes?
FPT
Roger what to you make of Jezza now ?
Three weeks ago he was a donkey, now he looks like a well hung one.
The PB poll flouncing ignores the fact that if the polling is correct he'll do better than deadhead Ed
The poll movement hasnt been so much Mrs M losing support, but Jezza picking it up to close the gap.
Labour should put up a shrine to Tim Farron for being so crap and allowing the party a chance to survive.
I think 'A well hung (or as they say in Lebanon 'blessed') donkey sounds about right. I agree that Tim Farron is pathetic but I don't believe the polls are reflecting anything other than voters having a well earned laugh at the arrogance of St Theresa.
Noneleless it won't stop them voting for her. Tory maj over 150.
We're going to have some seriously crap MPs in this next parliament!
I find the opposition to ID absurd. If I have to pick up a parcel from my local sorting office, I have to produce some ID. If I make a bank transfer in my local branch, I have to produce some ID. Is voting not more important than either of these transaction?
The broad argument is that it is discriminatory towards the poor, many of whom lack both passports and driving licences, and these objections would be only partially assuaged if the level of proof were reduced to something more basic than photo ID, e.g. a utility bill. If one half of a married or co-habiting couple pays all of the bills, then what is the other half meant to use - junk mail, perhaps?
The obvious solution to this problem is to resurrect the national ID card scheme, which would compel people to carry the things (the quid pro quo being that they would have to be issued free of charge, because poorer people would struggle to pay for them.) You can see how such a solution would appeal to a securocrat like May - but on the other hand it would be very expensive to implement and administer, highly controversial, and, moreover, it isn't in the Tory manifesto.
I'm a cynic, so I read this as something that sounds like a sensible measure against fraud in theory, but that oh-so-conveniently confers electoral advantage on the Tories in practice. You could say exactly the same thing about boundary change, of course, but I regard that as ironing out an existing unfairness and, therefore, being entirely justifiable. The introduction of ID verification at polling stations, on the other hand, risks creating a new unfairness that did not previously exist.
+1
It seems to be addressing a problem that does not appear to exist at even a moderate scale, yet the consequences may be severe. In this case, the medicine is worse than the disease.
Worse, the government had said it was going to do pilots into it, using different forms of ID. These pilots appear now to have been scrapped. A question is why pilots were deemed necessary, and now are not.
With regards to the voter suppression debate on the previous thread, isn't that what the Tories are planning for the next Parliament?
I have not seen the report justifying the id stuff at voting. I'm not in favour myself, although everyone I know who mentions the issue is stunned at how you can just walk up in and say you are person x, but my outrage would depend on whether it would impact certain groups more than others. As for reducing postal votes, which is certainly a ukip policy and I think a Tory one, I don't see how it suppresses anything - those with a genuine need would still get one I assume.
I think "requiring ID" could be absolutely fine if it effectively amounts to "producing something with your name on it". If it is restrictive in requiring a limited number of official government documents (even worse if it is PhotoID) then it could be very bad. My argument is that "producing a piece of paper with your name on it" might be an easy threshold to pass for an individual intent on committing one solitary piece of fraud, it would (I posit) set a considerable bar to anyone attempting electoral fraud on any sort of widespread, materially election affecting basis. People turning up with identikit non standard fake "ID"s on anything more than a basic scale would raise suspicions very rapidly.
They will have us chipped soon if they get their way, Tories always get round to this, they are the nasty party right enough. Very convenient for them indeeed.
And the next thing they will have "named persons" getting children to spy on their parents.
Always one cretin, back under your rock cockroach.
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Have you seen the IFS analysis of both by any chance?
Labour's costings involves some "assumptions" shall we say.
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
The x-axis is just number of samples, it isn't correctly spaced for time - as I said it is quick and dirty.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
Do any polling companies ask the recipients 'on a scale of 0/10 how interested are you in politics?', or similar questions that may filter out the over engaged?
Yougov does. I don't know what they do with it, but I did read last week that most pollsters try and search out the less interested, who they think are harder to reach. If so this suggests the degree of interest is used as an additional factor to try and 'balance' the sample.
Certainly I always express a high degree of interest, and VI polls have been fairly sparse this time!
If the pollsters wanted to be a lot more accurate, 90% of respondents used should be 2/10 interested or less
I'll become less interested and see what transpires....
Watching SP with Richard Burgon should do the trick
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
Surveymonkey? Is this a proper weighted poll? It looks like it but I am not sure. Maybe just too good to be true from my perspective.
Not sure how they get 39%:29%:25% translating to only 24 seats...
Seems very unlikely doesn't it? But it would be possible if there was strong and efficient tactical voting by Unionists across different parts of the country.
One success that the SNP has had which has largely gone unremarked is the disengagement of the Scottish election from the UK one. The issue up here is independence and almost nothing else. Corbyn and May both seem peripheral. It is all about Nicola, Ruth and Kezia (who is having a much better campaign than I expected).
Slightly unfair. Ruth & her buds have managed to insert devolved policy making into a Westminster election at every turn, not to forget the heartbreaking work of staggering genius that is preserving winter fuel payments for Scotch crumblies.
I don't see how I could be being unfair in giving the SNP a compliment. Scottish politics is disengaging from rUK, partly for the reasons you have said. When the majority of the decisions that people actually care about are made at Holyrood it is inevitable that these issues will be debated in the campaign even if MPs have increasingly little say on the matters being argued about. As a Unionist I find it a concern but an inevitable consequence of a high level of devolution.
Indyref2 has of course exacerbated the trend this time around, possibly not to the advantage of the SNP in the way that Nicola hoped.
David , if you look at the pathetic Scottish conservative election policies, copy of London and SNPBAD it is unbelievable that they can even get one MP. We have some real numpties in Scotland, greedy grasping Tory ones and jsut stupid easily fooled morons and of course the Tories are the champions of teh knuckle dragging idiots who liv ein the past, they will come a cropper over that. Ruthie is only in it for herself and first whiff of a decent gig in London it will be F*** Scotland I am off.
Surely now was an opportunity for a decent London gig?
She would be found outquickly , even among the Westminster donkeys. In Scottish Conservatives she cannot fail to look good in comparison to the other donkeys.
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Have you seen the IFS analysis of both by any chance?
Labour's costings involves some "assumptions" shall we say.
But manifestos in general always do.
Their tax take assumptions are optimistic, at best.
I think the most likely result now is a Tory majority of 50-100, that will secure her position and give her a bit more room in Parliament to get through what she wants but it will also not be a big landslide and may well see her being a bit more flexible in her negotiations with the EU, though it would take a hung parliament or a fall in the size of the Tory majority for soft Brexit to be a possibility. It would be about the same size of majority as Blair got in 2005 or Wilson in 1966 or Eden in 1955, not a landslide on the scale of Thatcher in 1983 and 1987 or Attlee in 1945 or Blair in 1997 and 2005 or even as big as Macmillan got in 1959 but larger than Cameron's majority in 2015 or Major's in 1992, Thatcher's in 1979, Heath's in 1970 or Wilson's in 1964
The raw scatter chart of poll leads looks way scarier for Conservatives.
And does anyone member of the public actually remember a single thing from the Tory manifesto other than Winter Fuel and Dementia Tax? I doubt it.
What an own goal.
Interesting that if you take out the hump when the snap election was initially called, you aren't that far off a gradually downward trending straight line.
Edit/ or possibly I am assuming the x-axis is days when it isn't? Nevertheless the peak after 30 thru 35 is what stands out, rather than the post-maninfesto drop.
With an uptick at the end. Where do we go next? That is the question.
The x-axis is just number of samples, it isn't correctly spaced for time - as I said it is quick and dirty.
The starting point is when May called the election. The trends and the manifesto effect is even clearer on a 10 poll lag
Once again this is just by number of polls, it's not correctly time spaced.
Looks pretty bad, but I guess us down to labour rising more than anything else. Still shocks me every time I say it. Modest rise, seemed likely, 10 point rise? Very impressive.
The manifesto was unpopular, but to criticise it as uncosted when the labour one was appreciably worse in that regard is pretty lame.
Actually it is the other way round. Labour's manifesto is far better costed than the Conservative one. McDonnell seemed quite taken aback when he saw the Conservatives hadn't bothered.
Have you seen the IFS analysis of both by any chance?
Labour's costings involves some "assumptions" shall we say.
But manifestos in general always do.
Their tax take assumptions are optimistic, at best.
I think that it is the basis for something a lot more considered. What is now absolutely clear is that what matters is not eliminating the deficit, but being serious about managing its reduction. That gives a lot more scope for a sensible Labour party, which the current one is not. Renationalisation is ridiculous, as is the free stuff for the middle classes. Take those things out and there is a base from which to build. As I have also said on here a few times, the Tory move on social care also frees Labour up, as does the Tory acceptance that the state is a force for good. Labour genuinely believes that. I wonder how many Tory MPs do.
Why is renationalisation ridiculous?
If you think the NHS is underfunded, why would you spend umpteen billions buying back say water companies from foreign Govt. bodies that hold shares in them?
Oh I forgot, you will be paying them with "bonds", which don't represent real money at all, do they Jeremy?
:face-palm:
Say you spend £70bn to buy the water companies. You now have an asset worth £70bn.
You borrow the money at 1.5%. so interest of roughly £1bn/year. The companies make £2bn a year profit.
The profits from the company pay for the interest on the debt. If you're lucky you might have a bit left over you can reinvest in the NHS.
Except that your interest costs go up because investors will want a default risk premium because you may just unilaterally repudiate your commitments in future.
And the cost of big investments such as the Super Sewer will be on balance sheet do over time will be skimped on
That would mean sovereign debt should be more expensive than corporate debt. Which is not the case.
Corporate debt is priced at a premium to sovereign debt but the sovereign debt premium vs T-bonds will go up (so our debt is more expensive) - this is over all UK government debt so in absolute terms even more. Corporates will raise funds in other currencies to minimise the impact.
The investment skimping is a question of priorities so political. Higher wages for nurses or a big hole in the ground with pissed off NIMBYists. For a given amount of government borrowing capacity the former will always win. Skimping on investment doesn't matter until it does.
NAT SINKING FEELING Shock poll shows SNP at three-year low with 32 MPs ‘at risk’ as General Election race tightens
It's part of the Survey Monkey poll.
I'm not going to read too much into it.
17 Scottish Tory MPs, 12 SLab MPs, SNP down to 24 MPs.
I'm filing that in the Angus Reid folder.
Me, I'm not greedy, I'd be happy if the snp reduced to the 40s, very happy if it was mid 40s, and if they dipped into the thirties? Wonderful times.
Would help Corbyn get close to 200 seats or above though.
32 seats at risk though, I cannot credit that.
If 32 SNP seats are at risk, May could fail to make a net gain of more than 10 Labour seats in England and Wales and still have a majority comfortably over 50 thanks to Scotland
Comments
Corbyn's lack of interest in the EU, and Left Leaver sympathies are one of his strengths now. It is what stops this being the Brexit election that May wanted. Considering that it is the justification, Brexit is not being discussed even by its proponents.
What makes this an interesting yet difficult to predict election is how the electoral shifts work out:
1) Will former DNV turnout for Labour?
2) Will anti Tory tactical voting occur in significant ways?
3) Will former kippers become Mayflies, or will they disperse to where they were (going Lab, DNV and rump hard right UKIP)?
4) Who will benefit most from the receding SNP tide (I have no doubt that a more diverse range of political views will benefit Scotland)
5) Will tribal Labour return to the fold particularly in Wales and North?
6) Will Brexit become an issue at all? it isnt at the moment astonishingly.
As such I am forcasting a wide margin of error around my 76 seat majority prediction. +/- 50 seats.
I don't see a lot of betting value at the moment.
And does no one lament the same happening to ireton and Bradshaw? Sentencing a judge of all people because they did not like his judgements!
Certainly I always express a high degree of interest, and VI polls have been fairly sparse this time!
I can't think of anything Theresa May has done right on Brexit so far.
Not her hair brained ideas though
And the cost of big investments such as the Super Sewer will be on balance sheet do over time will be skimped on
What could possibly go wrong ....
1. Tax rises for high earners, who already pay a highly disproportionate percentage of the total income tax take, and are also the most mobile section of society.
2. Substantial tax rises on company profits.
3. A vast amount of extra borrowing, almost certainly at elevated rates of interest because the markets distrust Leftist administrations, which will ultimately all have to be repaid.
So, the wealthy taxpayers emigrate and take their taxes with them; the corporations cut investment and jobs in the UK to balance their books; and an ever-increasing proportion of Government income is spent servicing the national debt. We should also remember that the pension triple lock is to be maintained and planned increases in the state pension age are to be scrapped.
Fewer workers as a whole. Fewer highly-paid workers as a percentage of that total. More working-age people dependent on benefits. More, and more expensive, pensioners. Higher debts, and higher costs to service them. All of the money to deal with these problems can only come from spending cuts and tax rises, all against the background of a tanking economy and interest rates being jacked up repeatedly in a (probably only partially effective) effort to underpin the value of Sterling.
Anybody who doesn't think that a Hard Left Government won't lead to a high debt, high tax, high unemployment and high inflation economy in pretty short order is probably kidding themselves.
https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/867887951409229826
How is this cretin even an MP?
There are other corbynistas, all of whom are better than her, why does she get sent?
Oh sh*t ....
What's Diane done now?
Few other points:
1) Is there a clear difference now between those pollsters who (as I understand it) are adjusting from 2015 via differing methods i.e. turnout v demographic filters? Is this the new phone/online split for 2017?
It seems to be boiling down to oldies in the likes of Nuneaton v youngsters in Ealing. How many of each are there this time round and critically where are they (oldies in Bournemouth and youngies in central Birmingham are not as psephologically valuable as ones in Bristol or Coventry)?
2) Are they now adjusting for who is actually on the register because clearly if you're not on it now you don't count, and no more can be added?
3) Are they putting down some who have voted via post as 11/10 certainty ( you know what I mean).
4) Are we at the point this week if seriously mapping where the senior politicians are going ( as in Cameron's sudden appearance in Yeovil in 2015). I take it May isn't turning up in West Bromwich now but neither should Jezza be knocking on doors in Liverpool. Anybody able to set up "politician tracker" to see where they went exactly?
2. No.
3. Most will vote Conservative.
4. No idea.
5. Mostly.
6. The oddest feature of this election.
Should be compulsive viewing for all the electorate
The May government has obviously been cobbled together in a hurry following a surprise result in the EURef and it shows. My best hope is that she will be an old fashioned practical Tory, praxis rather than ideology.
·
10m
Andrew #Marr using disgraceful tactics of putting Diane Abbott's previously stated views to her. Terrible MSM behaviour.
If May has any sense she will try and put it off. My conspiracy theory is that the manifesto proposals were carefully crafted to keep the majority down to the level at which the hunters judge it isn't worth pushing restoration.
Or they could refuse and, like Argentina, be unable to raise money in the international capital markets until the dispute is settled
Personation is rare, and easy to detect after the event, when you roll up to vote at 9.55 pm and are told you have already voted. Even where there has been vote fraud, it's not usually taken this form outside of Northern Ireland.
Despite most recent polling Conservatives still look anecdotally strong in Cardiff, Newport, Bridgend and Swansea. I suspect this support is fairly soft and too many Tory banana skins could save Labour's day in Wales. Locally Andrew Davies and Alun Cairns can be less than gaffe-free!
The obvious solution to this problem is to resurrect the national ID card scheme, which would compel people to carry the things (the quid pro quo being that they would have to be issued free of charge, because poorer people would struggle to pay for them.) You can see how such a solution would appeal to a securocrat like May - but on the other hand it would be very expensive to implement and administer, highly controversial, and, moreover, it isn't in the Tory manifesto.
I'm a cynic, so I read this as something that sounds like a sensible measure against fraud in theory, but that oh-so-conveniently confers electoral advantage on the Tories in practice. You could say exactly the same thing about boundary change, of course, but I regard that as ironing out an existing unfairness and, therefore, being entirely justifiable. The introduction of ID verification at polling stations, on the other hand, risks creating a new unfairness that did not previously exist.
Give me strength. Setting aside for a moment the content of what she says, I must say I've always found abbotts style grating. She's always so offended by questioning, so condescending in her answers. And I know a thing or two about condescension, let me tell you.
Makes you proud to British .....
This election is like Arsenal vs Lincoln City - looked easy at first so people tried to talk up an upset, the big favs look to be struggling for a while... 5-0
It is a lot more ridiculous though. And the reliability of the costings is a separate matter to merely being costed.
Noneleless it won't stop them voting for her. Tory maj over 150.
We're going to have some seriously crap MPs in this next parliament!
It seems to be addressing a problem that does not appear to exist at even a moderate scale, yet the consequences may be severe. In this case, the medicine is worse than the disease.
Worse, the government had said it was going to do pilots into it, using different forms of ID. These pilots appear now to have been scrapped. A question is why pilots were deemed necessary, and now are not.
But manifestos in general always do.
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/868755436861874176
Once again this is just by number of polls, it's not correctly time spaced.
Watching SP with Richard Burgon should do the trick
Theresa May's rating has taken a knock, but it's still at 49%, compared to 30% for Corbyn, (net 9% vs -25%).
77% of Conservatives are certain to vote, compared to 69% Labour.
Corbyn's response to the Manchester bombing is well-received, but 53% still rate him unsuitable to be PM (26% do rate him).
The Tories have massive leads on all security related issues.
I'd expect the gap with Yougov to widen now.
The investment skimping is a question of priorities so political. Higher wages for nurses or a big hole in the ground with pissed off NIMBYists. For a given amount of government borrowing capacity the former will always win. Skimping on investment doesn't matter until it does.