"Islamist groups in Britain are undermining the fight against terrorism by peddling “myths” about the government’s key anti-radicalisation policy, according to the country’s most prominent Muslim lawyer.
Mr Afzal, who prosecuted the Rochdale sex-grooming gang, also condemned “self-appointed” community leaders whose sole agenda was to present Muslims “as victims and not as those who are potentially becoming radicals”."
Re nukes and their efficacy, one recent(ish) example was the Gulf War in 1991, where Saddam was told that any nonconventional weapons used would bring about a nuclear response. He had chemical weapons at the time and had used them against Iran and the Kurds. He didn't use them against the UN forces. Make of that what you will.
That's a good recent example. Saddam had already used these chemical weapons against others, but he drew the line at using them against the UN forces because he *knew* we had nukes and the capability to use them.
This is exactly what isam has been arguing, that polls only pick up the politically engaged. I think it makes more sesnse thesimply saying "oh they are overweighting the young's liklihood to turnout" when we know Corbyn enthuses this group like no leader before. I think they will increase their turnout and therefore Labour's share of the vote (doesn't mean to say that increase will be efficient ofcourse).
Middle aged women have gone from loving May to apperenly loving Corbyn, now there are good reasons for this but you would have to be a close political follower to know why.
Although the good news for Labour is the more political anoraks are likely to turnout more, even if the shift is exaggerated.
Now we just need to find proof this is what is driving the surge or is there a labour surge amongst the less avid political followeres. Since they don't do polls I'm not sure how to measure this......
The religion of opinion polls is peddled by charlatans who earn out of it even though the results are often ludicrously inaccurate.
Why is Michael Fallon doing the read my lips no tax rises con ? I thought it was only Vat in the conservative manifesto not to rise as they needed greater flexibility after the election to changing circumstances.
Mr. D, I had a weird period a couple of years ago when practically all my Ladbrokes bets came off, and none of my Betfair ones did. I'm hoping the election will help improve things on Betfair.
IMPORTANT ACCOUNT INFORMATION Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
I've never even used any of their sportsbook promos. Unless you count their Tory price on Dumfries and Galloway as a promotion.
Have you been winning too much?
I barely touch the sportsbook - must have less that £50of profit from them unless I've forgotten something. I have placed a large number of longish odds Con Scottish Constituency bets a couple of which I've taken the SNP side of now that the odds have moved towards reality which has probably been the trigger as the actual sums of 'guaranteed' profit are miniscule
Surely that is the principle of deterrence. That you are threatening to use it in retaliation, after deterrence has failed?
The clue is probably in the word "deter" - MAD is supposed to stop either side attacking the other. In the old days of cold war it was NATO armies vs Soviet armies. Then if it went nuclear our silo missiles against their silo missiles. You can use subs to do a decapitation strike but that's doctrinally a silly idea as there needs to be someone left alive to stop the war.
And so our Trident subs aren't really independent. In a war their role like the other SSBN boats is to sit deep as the first strike exchange kills us all (the UK isn't big enough to survive in much of a viable form from multiple strikes unlike say the US) and then only deploy to either destroy any remaining enemy cities (military targets go in the first strike) or as previous PMs had admitted not deploy at all, the final instruction letter to the captain's redeployi6them to Australia.
As soon as anyone uses nuclear weapons in a classic global war scenario deterrence has failed. But that isnt the threat today which is regional or local. And against say North Korea or Isis Trident provides no deterrent at all.
IMPORTANT ACCOUNT INFORMATION Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
I've never even used any of their sportsbook promos. Unless you count their Tory price on Dumfries and Galloway as a promotion.
IMPORTANT ACCOUNT INFORMATION Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
I've never even used any of their sportsbook promos. Unless you count their Tory price on Dumfries and Galloway as a promotion.
Congratulations, you obviously made it to the winners' circle
It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.
He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.
He also promised nothing , "no plans at the moment" is far from any promise. The cheating lying toerags could have changed their plans by next Saturday, same as their "Dementia Tax".
Yeah, their engine bitching was tiresome a couple of seasons ago, and remains so now.
Oh, and Palmer's apparently 'driving for his future', but given he's on a one year contract, scored nothing and been comprehensively outdriven by Hulkenberg, *and* Renault are reportedly after Perez I'm not sure that qualifies as news.
IMPORTANT ACCOUNT INFORMATION Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
I've never even used any of their sportsbook promos. Unless you count their Tory price on Dumfries and Galloway as a promotion.
Have you been winning too much?
I barely touch the sportsbook - must have less that £50of profit from them unless I've forgotten something. I have placed a large number of longish odds Con Scottish Constituency bets a couple of which I've taken the SNP side of now that the odds have moved towards reality which has probably been the trigger as the actual sums of 'guaranteed' profit are miniscule
I had the letter too.
In previous election Shadsy had the best range of constituencies and odds, but this year both his range and value is not there. My constituency bets are with PP, Sportsbook and Skybet. I wonder if Shadsy got stung too much over SNP gains last time and was told to keep it low key.
IMPORTANT ACCOUNT INFORMATION Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
I've never even used any of their sportsbook promos. Unless you count their Tory price on Dumfries and Galloway as a promotion.
Congratulations, you obviously made it to the winners' circle
I also got gubbed on their Sportsbook for trading on the Exchange.
Surely that is the principle of deterrence. That you are threatening to use it in retaliation, after deterrence has failed?
The clue is probably in the word "deter" - MAD is supposed to stop either side attacking the other. In the old days of cold war it was NATO armies vs Soviet armies. Then if it went nuclear our silo missiles against their silo missiles. You can use subs to do a decapitation strike but that's doctrinally a silly idea as there needs to be someone left alive to stop the war.
And so our Trident subs aren't really independent. In a war their role like the other SSBN boats is to sit deep as the first strike exchange kills us all (the UK isn't big enough to survive in much of a viable form from multiple strikes unlike say the US) and then only deploy to either destroy any remaining enemy cities (military targets go in the first strike) or as previous PMs had admitted not deploy at all, the final instruction letter to the captain's redeployi6them to Australia.
As soon as anyone uses nuclear weapons in a classic global war scenario deterrence has failed. But that isnt the threat today which is regional or local. And against say North Korea or Isis Trident provides no deterrent at all.
The whole point is to stop the situation escalating to a nuclear exchange in the first place. Agree if it has got that far it has failed, but that doesn't mean it is useless.
That's plain silly. Even if the polling figures aren't accurate in absolute terms, it's clear from comparing like to like that there has been a big drop in the Conservative lead.
Surely that is the principle of deterrence. That you are threatening to use it in retaliation, after deterrence has failed?
The clue is probably in the word "deter" - MAD is supposed to stop either side attacking the other. In the old days of cold war it was NATO armies vs Soviet armies. Then if it went nuclear our silo missiles against their silo missiles. You can use subs to do a decapitation strike but that's doctrinally a silly idea as there needs to be someone left alive to stop the war.
And so our Trident subs aren't really independent. In a war their role like the other SSBN boats is to sit deep as the first strike exchange kills us all (the UK isn't big enough to survive in much of a viable form from multiple strikes unlike say the US) and then only deploy to either destroy any remaining enemy cities (military targets go in the first strike) or as previous PMs had admitted not deploy at all, the final instruction letter to the captain's redeployi6them to Australia.
As soon as anyone uses nuclear weapons in a classic global war scenario deterrence has failed. But that isnt the threat today which is regional or local. And against say North Korea or Isis Trident provides no deterrent at all.
The whole point is to stop the situation escalating to a nuclear exchange in the first place. Agree if it has got that far it has failed, but that doesn't mean it is useless.
That's plain silly. Even if the polling figures aren't accurate in absolute terms, it's clear from comparing like to like that there has been a big drop in the Conservative lead.
Did you see the tweet SO linked below? Someone posted their theory of why the polls may be seeing a bigger swing than is actually happening.
Am I understanding the canvassers versus polls disconnect correctly?
Canvassers are finding 2015 Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (such as they are) mostly staying firm. However there is a big swing of UKIP supporters to the Conservatives, and a much smaller one to Labour. Polls accord with canvass numbers for the Conservatives, but the Labour figure is higher. The explanation for this is a large number of younger voters who didn't vote last time claiming to pollsters, but not canvassers, that they will vote this time and for Labour.
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Oddly enough the biggest compromise and the most effective one was changing to a blue suit from the shabby vanilla one he usually wears. I know this sounds like superficial crap but having had to sit around a table with execs from P&G many times discussing what colour tie a model should be wearing I can vouch for the fact it's not trivial.*
*(In real life of course it is trivial but in the whacky world of advertising/marketing it really isn't)
It's a fair point that we expect out politicians to look like leaders though. It took a year or so for Corbyn's handlers to finally drag him to a tailor and get him to look the part.
The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
This is exactly what isam has been arguing, that polls only pick up the politically engaged. I think it makes more sesnse thesimply saying "oh they are overweighting the young's liklihood to turnout" when we know Corbyn enthuses this group like no leader before. I think they will increase their turnout and therefore Labour's share of the vote (doesn't mean to say that increase will be efficient ofcourse).
Middle aged women have gone from loving May to apperenly loving Corbyn, now there are good reasons for this but you would have to be a close political follower to know why.
Although the good news for Labour is the more political anoraks are likely to turnout more, even if the shift is exaggerated.
Now we just need to find proof this is what is driving the surge or is there a labour surge amongst the less avid political followeres. Since they don't do polls I'm not sure how to measure this......
The religion of opinion polls is peddled by charlatans who earn out of it even though the results are often ludicrously inaccurate.
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.
Marvellous, geopolitics based on pishy TV screenplays. Though tbf that's probably the whole foundation of Trump's foreign policy.
Tory halfwits on here make Trump look sane. Big tough armchair fighters every one of them.
Surely that is the principle of deterrence. That you are threatening to use it in retaliation, after deterrence has failed?
The clue is probably in the word "deter" - MAD is supposed to stop either side attacking the other. In the old days of cold war it was NATO armies vs Soviet armies. Then if it went nuclear our silo missiles against their silo missiles. You can use subs to do a decapitation strike but that's doctrinally a silly idea as there needs to be someone left alive to stop the war.
And so our Trident subs aren't really independent. In a war their role like the other SSBN boats is to sit deep as the first strike exchange kills us all (the UK isn't big enough to survive in much of a viable form from multiple strikes unlike say the US) and then only deploy to either destroy any remaining enemy cities (military targets go in the first strike) or as previous PMs had admitted not deploy at all, the final instruction letter to the captain's redeployi6them to Australia.
As soon as anyone uses nuclear weapons in a classic global war scenario deterrence has failed. But that isnt the threat today which is regional or local. And against say North Korea or Isis Trident provides no deterrent at all.
The whole point is to stop the situation escalating to a nuclear exchange in the first place. Agree if it has got that far it has failed, but that doesn't mean it is useless.
Which was pretty much what Jezza said last night.
For the deterrence to work they have to think that you would use it.
Am I understanding the canvassers versus polls disconnect correctly?
Canvassers are finding 2015 Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (such as they are) mostly staying firm. However there is a big swing of UKIP supporters to the Conservatives, and a much smaller one to Labour. Polls accord with canvass numbers for the Conservatives, but the Labour figure is higher. The explanation for this is a large number of younger voters who didn't vote last time claiming to pollsters, but not canvassers, that they will vote this time and for Labour.
Young voters alone surely cannot move the polls by ten points?
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.
Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.
My preference would be to use something else.
But you can't exclude circumstances in which it might be appropriate to deploy nuclear weapons.
How could you sleep at night knowing your responsible for killing millions of innocent people that did nothing to you.
They would count the increase in their share prices, all those new bombs being oredered would mean higher dividends. You have much to learn on here.
This is exactly what isam has been arguing, that polls only pick up the politically engaged. I think it makes more sesnse thesimply saying "oh they are overweighting the young's liklihood to turnout" when we know Corbyn enthuses this group like no leader before. I think they will increase their turnout and therefore Labour's share of the vote (doesn't mean to say that increase will be efficient ofcourse).
Middle aged women have gone from loving May to apperenly loving Corbyn, now there are good reasons for this but you would have to be a close political follower to know why.
Although the good news for Labour is the more political anoraks are likely to turnout more, even if the shift is exaggerated.
Now we just need to find proof this is what is driving the surge or is there a labour surge amongst the less avid political followeres. Since they don't do polls I'm not sure how to measure this......
The religion of opinion polls is peddled by charlatans who earn out of it even though the results are often ludicrously inaccurate.
So like faith healers then....
I think the two are very similar at the moment in the way those who are obsessed by them don't care if the results are shit, they still defend them
Polling could improve and become accurate, but having panels of volunteers is ridiculous.
General Election campaigns have little impact on the result. That is what we know on the basis of previous results. The current polling suggests otherwise. My money is on the polling being less reliable a guide then past experience.
The last fixed event before the Campaign was the Local elections. These pointed to a comfortable Conservative majority. That remains the likelihood.
Before the Campaign it was generally agreed Labour were in such a fix it might be existential. Labour are imho arguably now in more of a fix than at the start of the Campaign because Jeremy is going nowhere. When he decides to go it will be to a successor of his choice.
Am I understanding the canvassers versus polls disconnect correctly?
Canvassers are finding 2015 Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (such as they are) mostly staying firm. However there is a big swing of UKIP supporters to the Conservatives, and a much smaller one to Labour. Polls accord with canvass numbers for the Conservatives, but the Labour figure is higher. The explanation for this is a large number of younger voters who didn't vote last time claiming to pollsters, but not canvassers, that they will vote this time and for Labour.
Young voters alone surely cannot move the polls by ten points?
Compared with 2015 actual result. The average polling is that both Tories and Labour have piled on extra vote share with the Tories doing perhaps three percentage points better than Labour.
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.
Why would it need to be a nuke?
Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
Mr. Sandpit, yes, but what I mean is that, initially, a bookie sets odds according to what they think, whereas at some stage they may well change them not due to a shift in opinion but because of weight of money. I was just wondering how/when that happens.
Yes, he'll have in his mind an idea of the true probability of the outcome of an event. He'll periodically* review his profits and losses based on what bets he's taken, and if he has a lopsided book he'll adjust the prices to encourage people who want to be on the other side of the bet to balance his books, but still keeping in mind his actual probabilities (which of course may also change over time).
*modern bookies have big computers that do this several times an hour these days, our own @tissue_price is an expert on this, but he's a little busy with other things in life right now!
Am I understanding the canvassers versus polls disconnect correctly?
Canvassers are finding 2015 Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (such as they are) mostly staying firm. However there is a big swing of UKIP supporters to the Conservatives, and a much smaller one to Labour. Polls accord with canvass numbers for the Conservatives, but the Labour figure is higher. The explanation for this is a large number of younger voters who didn't vote last time claiming to pollsters, but not canvassers, that they will vote this time and for Labour.
Younger voters and DNV are harder to canvas, as they do not have canvass histories, and are intrinsically harder to find.
Re nukes and their efficacy, one recent(ish) example was the Gulf War in 1991, where Saddam was told that any nonconventional weapons used would bring about a nuclear response. He had chemical weapons at the time and had used them against Iran and the Kurds. He didn't use them against the UN forces. Make of that what you will.
That's a good recent example. Saddam had already used these chemical weapons against others, but he drew the line at using them against the UN forces because he *knew* we had nukes and the capability to use them.
As Britain doesn't have tactical nuclear weapons any more, it's difficult to see how a British prime minister could use a nuclear threat in that way, unless by threatening to obliterate a city in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.
The best thing about the election happening is all the 50-post monomaniac sockpuppets with broken capslocks will stop being paid and hence stop posting, and this place will become readable again.
The best thing about the election happening is all the 50-post monomaniac sockpuppets with broken capslocks will stop being paid and hence stop posting, and this place will become readable again.
Corbyn is just 3% off of Blair's landslide 1997 share of 43% according to Mori.
Let that sink in.
Yet no one on the ground sees this.
Indeed, in 1997 we had tory candidates telling the media it was hopeless and middle England was fawning over Blair. I see none of this, minimal vocal tory concern and just Labour activists being loud rather than the unengaged voters
in both 2010 and 2015 the tory vote share exceeded every single poll figure from the preceding two weeks, suggesting the highest tory poll figures are the most accurate and even these will understate it. So circa 46-47
Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.
He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.
Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.
Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
The best thing about the election happening is all the 50-post monomaniac sockpuppets with broken capslocks will stop being paid and hence stop posting, and this place will become readable again.
Sorry, old chap, I might stick around...
Your a better class of sockpuppet.. you have 27k posts and your caps lock works
It's very similar to the article I wrote last Sunday.
"Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."
Nuclear weapons are vastly more powerful, but it's a matter of degree. The bomb (MOAB) used in Afghanistan was conventional.
Let's all agree .... war is bad. Let's put it on a placard and have a demo - that will bring IS to its senses.
How about we question peoples willingness and thirst for committing murder by killing innocent people.
Again, you are missing the point of deterrence.
Why then are all the Tory bedwetters constantly whinging on about Jeremy pressing the button if they think it is for "deterrence". Whole idea is not to press it.
Yeah, their engine bitching was tiresome a couple of seasons ago, and remains so now.
Oh, and Palmer's apparently 'driving for his future', but given he's on a one year contract, scored nothing and been comprehensively outdriven by Hulkenberg, *and* Renault are reportedly after Perez I'm not sure that qualifies as news.
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure. They're just bitching because they're not winning, it's always been Helmut Marko's style and it really grates when everyone else is expending their efforts making their car better as opposed to lobbying for rule changes in their favour.
Palmer's had a lot of bad luck, but at the end of the day his bosses are expecting to see points on the board from him. You get one shot at F1 and can't afford any mistakes - unless you've got as much money as Maldonado or Stroll, of course.
Corbyn is just 3% off of Blair's landslide 1997 share of 43% according to Mori.
Let that sink in.
Both sides are being daft in making historical comparisons with the absolute poll ratings. Quite obviously both parties are polling better because the third and fourth parties are down to about 10% between them rather than 20-30%. Historical comparisons are meaningless, whether in political or psephological terms.
Hmm...not completely convinced by this thread header. Nature abhors a vacuum and the Great British public do not like a walk over. They have tried to create a viable opposition from the extremely poor material available and made a half decent fist of it.
The Tory party likes people who win. They even put up with Cameron as long as he won despite his views on Europe. If May wins the stunning ineptitude of this campaign will be largely forgotten and wholly forgiven. If she does not win she is toast.
My guess remains that she will win enough. Not the landslide once thought, the 2022 election will no longer be decided in this election with Labour out of sight, but a solid win none the less. I now think the Tories will end up with about 370 seats, a majority of 90. That will do. Labour just above 200, the SNP at 47/48 and the Lib Dems still at 8 or thereby.
An ideal result would be for the Tories to have a majority of 12, with Labour making a small net seat gain.
It's very similar to the article I wrote last Sunday.
"Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."
Mike OGH disagrees, he says polling companies have dealt with the problem, that's why he wouldn't publish it
We are about to see if he is right in that assessment, if they haven't deal with it then in 2022 I am sure we will be assured that they have really dealt with it this time
Corbyn is just 3% off of Blair's landslide 1997 share of 43% according to Mori.
Let that sink in.
Yet no one on the ground sees this.
Indeed, in 1997 we had tory candidates telling the media it was hopeless and middle England was fawning over Blair. I see none of this, minimal vocal tory concern and just Labour activists being loud rather than the unengaged voters
in both 2010 and 2015 the tory vote share exceeded every single poll figure from the preceding two weeks, suggesting the highest tory poll figures are the most accurate and even these will understate it. So circa 46-47
Possible, but a couple of caveats. In principle polling companies adjust for previous inaccuracies in their predictive model. Also the situation isn't the same as the 1997 Blair landslide. No-one predicts Corbyn will sweep in with a massive majority. Worse case for the Tories is they get approximately the same as last time and lose their majority.
The best thing about the election happening is all the 50-post monomaniac sockpuppets with broken capslocks will stop being paid and hence stop posting, and this place will become readable again.
Where does one apply to be paid to post here, please?
I've done it, I've put down cash on Tory majority because 1.24 is frikin ludicrous.
If you believe the Mori (SNP, Plaid combined on 3%) and Yougov polls Scotland could be crucial to May having a majority. Any switch from May to Corbyn detected?
Corbyn has nothing in Scotland, labour are circling the drain, sitting just above Tories in their mediocrity.
Mr. Sandpit, I agree, Red Bull's dummy-spitting antics aren't an edifying spectacle.
And Palmer's gotten two shots. He was meant to be axed last year but Magnussen refused the one year contract he was offered (wanted two) and went to Haas instead, which is why Palmer got the nod.
Corbyn is just 3% off of Blair's landslide 1997 share of 43% according to Mori.
Let that sink in.
Yet no one on the ground sees this.
Indeed, in 1997 we had tory candidates telling the media it was hopeless and middle England was fawning over Blair. I see none of this, minimal vocal tory concern and just Labour activists being loud rather than the unengaged voters
in both 2010 and 2015 the tory vote share exceeded every single poll figure from the preceding two weeks, suggesting the highest tory poll figures are the most accurate and even these will understate it. So circa 46-47
Possible, but a couple of caveats. In principle polling companies adjust for previous inaccuracies in their predictive model. Also the situation isn't the same as the 1997 Blair landslide. No-one predicts Corbyn will sweep in with a massive majority. Worse case for the Tories is they get approximately the same as last time and lose their majority.
They are supposed to adjust, yet every time they underestimate the Tories.
Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.
He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.
Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.
Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
You're more likely to die for want of a hospital bed or for the lack of police than a cold war nuclear exchange.
Obviously a RTA is a far greater threat than any of those.
This is exactly what isam has been arguing, that polls only pick up the politically engaged. I think it makes more sesnse thesimply saying "oh they are overweighting the young's liklihood to turnout" when we know Corbyn enthuses this group like no leader before. I think they will increase their turnout and therefore Labour's share of the vote (doesn't mean to say that increase will be efficient ofcourse).
Middle aged women have gone from loving May to apperenly loving Corbyn, now there are good reasons for this but you would have to be a close political follower to know why.
Although the good news for Labour is the more political anoraks are likely to turnout more, even if the shift is exaggerated.
Now we just need to find proof this is what is driving the surge or is there a labour surge amongst the less avid political followeres. Since they don't do polls I'm not sure how to measure this......
It is not that May lovers have started loving Corbyn. They are becoming less ardent in their affections though. The Labour surge has happened while the Tory share has remained within MOE. It has occurred by squeezing other left wing parties...
That isn't actually true though, at least not with Yougov. As I pointed out before the election was called Yougov was showing the share of the vote for Lab+LD+Green as just over 40%. It is now around 49%. That is the origin of of the change, not shifting between those parties.
Ipsos, which always has ludicrously high figures for the left of centre parties has also increased their share by 3%.
Re nukes and their efficacy, one recent(ish) example was the Gulf War in 1991, where Saddam was told that any nonconventional weapons used would bring about a nuclear response. He had chemical weapons at the time and had used them against Iran and the Kurds. He didn't use them against the UN forces. Make of that what you will.
That's a good recent example. Saddam had already used these chemical weapons against others, but he drew the line at using them against the UN forces because he *knew* we had nukes and the capability to use them.
Pollsters are more likely to reach the politically engaged: OK, that sounds plausible but then the argument seems to be that these people are both more and less likely to change their voting intentions.
@bbcnickrobinson: By embracing the manifesto @Ed_Miliband helps ensure that Corbynistas have won (argument inside Labour) even if they lose (the election)
@bbcnickrobinson: By embracing the manifesto @Ed_Miliband helps ensure that Corbynistas have won (argument inside Labour) even if they lose (the election)
It's very similar to the article I wrote last Sunday.
"Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."
Mike OGH disagrees, he says polling companies have dealt with the problem, that's why he wouldn't publish it
That's a well thought through piece, and it's clear that several pollsters will have egg on their faces a week from now. OGH and yourself can't both be right, I guess we'll find out in six days' time!
I've steadfastly avoided predictions in this election. However there do seem to be two possibilities. Either May wins big or Corbyn does a lot better than expected due to a surge in younger voters. Whatever the outcome the losers of the election will surely be the 'Blairites' and others who wish to remain in the EU. One of the arguments made by Blair after the referendum was that large numbers of young people felt deeply disenfranchised by Brexit. Yet now they potentially surge behind the least EU enthusiastic Labour leader in modern times?
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Oddly enough the biggest compromise and the most effective one was changing to a blue suit from the shabby vanilla one he usually wears. I know this sounds like superficial crap but having had to sit around a table with execs from P&G many times discussing what colour tie a model should be wearing I can vouch for the fact it's not trivial.*
*(In real life of course it is trivial but in the whacky world of advertising/marketing it really isn't)
It's a fair point that we expect out politicians to look like leaders though. It took a year or so for Corbyn's handlers to finally drag him to a tailor and get him to look the part.
The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
It is strange how gaining power in any field does tend to confer a broader sense of responsibility to those outside you personal spectrum you very rarely see mayors behaving in a way that embarrasses their town during civic functions etc, it does happen but those that do pay the price. I just wonder if Corbyn is starting to realize this which is the reason for some of the change in rhetoric, demeanor and appearance.
It's very similar to the article I wrote last Sunday.
"Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."
Mike OGH disagrees, he says polling companies have dealt with the problem, that's why he wouldn't publish it
We are about to see if he is right in that assessment, if they haven't deal with it then in 2022 I am sure we will be assured that they have really dealt with it this time
A fun experiment would be: kidnap Yougov's entire panel and replace with androids identical kidnapees except in one respect: they are issued with one die (sing. of dice) each and when asked a VI question they roll the die and make a statement of VI which they read off a chart provided by the experimenter.
The question the experiment addresses is: do Yougov ever twig that the data are basically random, or do they go on and on thinking, one last heave and we will finally sort out the shy Greens in 3-way marginals issue?
Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.
Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.
No, but it feeds into the impression that Corbyn won't stand up for Britain.
Corbyn is just 3% off of Blair's landslide 1997 share of 43% according to Mori.
Let that sink in.
Yet no one on the ground sees this.
Indeed, in 1997 we had tory candidates telling the media it was hopeless and middle England was fawning over Blair. I see none of this, minimal vocal tory concern and just Labour activists being loud rather than the unengaged voters
in both 2010 and 2015 the tory vote share exceeded every single poll figure from the preceding two weeks, suggesting the highest tory poll figures are the most accurate and even these will understate it. So circa 46-47
The LibDems were a significant anti-Tory force in 1997. They are not now.
@bbcnickrobinson: By embracing the manifesto @Ed_Miliband helps ensure that Corbynistas have won (argument inside Labour) even if they lose (the election)
Is Red Ed planning a come back after the election? I do hope so!
Mr. Sandpit, I agree, Red Bull's dummy-spitting antics aren't an edifying spectacle.
And Palmer's gotten two shots. He was meant to be axed last year but Magnussen refused the one year contract he was offered (wanted two) and went to Haas instead, which is why Palmer got the nod.
Although there is more professional manufacturer involvement now, F1 has its roots in bringing talented guys together in order to build a car that goes faster than the other teams. They're a bunch of engineers and other science types, not a bunch of politicians.
Marko is the only guy in the whole circus who acts like a politician first, thinks that getting the rules changed is easier than making a faster car - when everyone else in F1 just knuckles down and gets on with the job of making their car faster. That's why he's so damn unpopular with everyone else.
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.
Why would it need to be a nuke?
Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.
Why would it need to be a nuke?
Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
Hm not sure I'd want to irradiate all that lovely oil up there that we can steal for HM Treasury.
Pollsters are more likely to reach the politically engaged: OK, that sounds plausible but then the argument seems to be that these people are both more and less likely to change their voting intentions.
That polling is more likely to reach the engaged, particularly if using a largely self-selected online panel, is entirely reasonable.
That the engaged might have a different mix of views or react differently during a campaign is also reasonable. And that one aspect of this might be firmer views and hence less switching is credible.
But to suggest that this Tory campaign has been so bad that unusually the engaged are switching away in greater numbers is a real intellectual leap with very little evidence. Yes, I see the logic of the argument, but would be surprised if this is what is happening.
On the question of why the polls have been wrong, the discussion here the other day concluded that the British are relatively poor and relatively unpredictable at turning out to vote (and not very self-aware about it either). With the secondary factor that propensity to vote correlates reasonably strongly (via age) with voting intention. Our pollsters are struggling with all their adjustments to understand and model it, particularly as the scenario changes from one election to the next. This seems a better explanation.
As to the campaign, well, the completely non-engaged won't be voting at all. Otherwise, for those who have noticed, what marks out this campaign as unusual is that the government side and leader started with a remarkably good public image (since unusually the election was called during a honeymoon) yet the reality has surprised hugely on the downside, with the opposition in precisely the opposite position.
The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
It is strange how gaining power in any field does tend to confer a broader sense of responsibility to those outside you personal spectrum you very rarely see mayors behaving in a way that embarrasses their town during civic functions etc, it does happen but those that do pay the price. I just wonder if Corbyn is starting to realize this which is the reason for some of the change in rhetoric, demeanor and appearance.
You feel that Trump looks and acts the past? The world is changing, not always in a way we'd like.
Thoughtful piece, in more optimstic terms, from a Labour supporter who expects a Tory win:
Summary: poll respondents, who are usually the most entrenched group, are at this election very fickle, because Corbyn.
I don't really buy this. It's not as if Corbyn is/was unknown to the well-informed poll-respondent class.
My twopennorth... Canvassers are saying they haven't noticed a change on the ground. This is certainly true for the Tories. Their share hasn't really changed much. They're still on 44%, which seems about right. The question is more about Labour: have they gone from 28% to 38% in six weeks? I don't see why not. They've certainly squeezed the LDs, Greens, PC and Ukip, and they seem to have picked up a big share of the undecideds. So, yes, the polls are about right.
The Tories will still win by 8-9% though. The current polling average is 6% (same as 2015 election result) but you can add on a few percent because for various reasons the switchers, don't knows and younger voters are less likely to vote even if they're intending to. Even little things like they'll turn up to vote and find they're not registered. Anyway, a small increase in gap since 2015, so a majority of 50 or so. Maybe not worth holding the election for, but still useful.
I think one thing that the Tories failed to take into account in calling this election is that it's only 2 years since the last one and what the polls say in peacetime needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. People's minds don't change much in 2 years, and Brexit is the electoral red herring I always said it was.
1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people. 2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.
If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.
Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.
Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.
Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.
My preference would be to use something else.
But you can't exclude circumstances in which it might be appropriate to deploy nuclear weapons.
How could you sleep at night knowing your responsible for killing millions of innocent people that did nothing to you.
The PM is the person we employ to do the things that we don't want to do, but know that we must.
Would you support the pm being arrested for murder if they used a nuclear bomb?
The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 only extends to the UK and associated territories.
Can you just answer the question Would you support the pm being arrested for murder and if they used a nuclear bomb?
Given that they aren't arrested when there are civilian casualties in war, no. Truman wasn't arrested, for instance.
There should be no consequences for the individual that uses a nuclear weapon because they work for a state.
What a wonderful world we live in.
It's an act of war and a last resort. Yes that is the world we live in, not some idealistic fantasy you might prefer.
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.
Oddly enough the biggest compromise and the most effective one was changing to a blue suit from the shabby vanilla one he usually wears. I know this sounds like superficial crap but having had to sit around a table with execs from P&G many times discussing what colour tie a model should be wearing I can vouch for the fact it's not trivial.*
*(In real life of course it is trivial but in the whacky world of advertising/marketing it really isn't)
It's a fair point that we expect out politicians to look like leaders though. It took a year or so for Corbyn's handlers to finally drag him to a tailor and get him to look the part.
The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
The strange thing is that companies like P&G have researched these things to death and depressingly they make a significant difference. The day we'll know these superficial bits of flim flam stop making a difference is the day we elect a PM with a Birmingham accent
Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.
He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.
Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.
Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
You're more likely to die for want of a hospital bed or for the lack of police than a cold war nuclear exchange.
Obviously a RTA is a far greater threat than any of those.
I don't think that's true. Even if we say that the odds of a full on nuclear exchange in your lifetime are 1 in 100, that is pretty much the same as your chance of dying from it as there would be few survivors. There were just over 1700 deaths on the road in 2015, giving (if my rough maths is corect) a 0.2% lifetime chance of death from an RTA.
Why is Michael Fallon doing the read my lips no tax rises con ? I thought it was only Vat in the conservative manifesto not to rise as they needed greater flexibility after the election to changing circumstances.
Desperation , the whoppers get bigger and bigger as defeat looms.
Comments
Mr Afzal, who prosecuted the Rochdale sex-grooming gang, also condemned “self-appointed” community leaders whose sole agenda was to present Muslims “as victims and not as those who are potentially becoming radicals”."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/myths-by-muslims-hit-anti-terror-campaign-0lqf9jl5s
Mr. Z, you're right, that does sound horrendous.
And so our Trident subs aren't really independent. In a war their role like the other SSBN boats is to sit deep as the first strike exchange kills us all (the UK isn't big enough to survive in much of a viable form from multiple strikes unlike say the US) and then only deploy to either destroy any remaining enemy cities (military targets go in the first strike) or as previous PMs had admitted not deploy at all, the final instruction letter to the captain's redeployi6them to Australia.
As soon as anyone uses nuclear weapons in a classic global war scenario deterrence has failed. But that isnt the threat today which is regional or local. And against say North Korea or Isis Trident provides no deterrent at all.
Yeah, their engine bitching was tiresome a couple of seasons ago, and remains so now.
Oh, and Palmer's apparently 'driving for his future', but given he's on a one year contract, scored nothing and been comprehensively outdriven by Hulkenberg, *and* Renault are reportedly after Perez I'm not sure that qualifies as news.
In previous election Shadsy had the best range of constituencies and odds, but this year both his range and value is not there. My constituency bets are with PP, Sportsbook and Skybet. I wonder if Shadsy got stung too much over SNP gains last time and was told to keep it low key.
Nuke everyone, and everything.
NOW.
Canvassers are finding 2015 Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (such as they are) mostly staying firm. However there is a big swing of UKIP supporters to the Conservatives, and a much smaller one to Labour. Polls accord with canvass numbers for the Conservatives, but the Labour figure is higher. The explanation for this is a large number of younger voters who didn't vote last time claiming to pollsters, but not canvassers, that they will vote this time and for Labour.
The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
You don't eat coke either btw.
Popcorn has arrived and beers are on ice.
The final #MegaPollingSaturday of the election campaign awaits.
I'm not expecting much better...
Polling could improve and become accurate, but having panels of volunteers is ridiculous.
The last fixed event before the Campaign was the Local elections. These pointed to a comfortable Conservative majority. That remains the likelihood.
Before the Campaign it was generally agreed Labour were in such a fix it might be existential. Labour are imho arguably now in more of a fix than at the start of the Campaign because Jeremy is going nowhere. When he decides to go it will be to a successor of his choice.
*modern bookies have big computers that do this several times an hour these days, our own @tissue_price is an expert on this, but he's a little busy with other things in life right now!
I am predicting 76 Con majority myself.
Morning Malc!
in both 2010 and 2015 the tory vote share exceeded every single poll figure from the preceding two weeks, suggesting the highest tory poll figures are the most accurate and even these will understate it. So circa 46-47
Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.
Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
"Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1
Mike OGH disagrees, he says polling companies have dealt with the problem, that's why he wouldn't publish it
Palmer's had a lot of bad luck, but at the end of the day his bosses are expecting to see points on the board from him. You get one shot at F1 and can't afford any mistakes - unless you've got as much money as Maldonado or Stroll, of course.
And Palmer's gotten two shots. He was meant to be axed last year but Magnussen refused the one year contract he was offered (wanted two) and went to Haas instead, which is why Palmer got the nod.
https://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/big2-labcon1.jpg
Obviously a RTA is a far greater threat than any of those.
Ipsos, which always has ludicrously high figures for the left of centre parties has also increased their share by 3%.
@bbcnickrobinson: By embracing the manifesto @Ed_Miliband helps ensure that Corbynistas have won (argument inside Labour) even if they lose (the election)
He doesn't deserve all the blame for Corbyn getting the leadership, but some of it, and now he's giving succour to the far left. What an oaf.
The question the experiment addresses is: do Yougov ever twig that the data are basically random, or do they go on and on thinking, one last heave and we will finally sort out the shy Greens in 3-way marginals issue?
A split Labour party, with the sensible left perhaps taking on some Lib Dems and wet Tories, could be a very good thing.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/staunch-unionist-bites-chunk-out-10550223
Marko is the only guy in the whole circus who acts like a politician first, thinks that getting the rules changed is easier than making a faster car - when everyone else in F1 just knuckles down and gets on with the job of making their car faster. That's why he's so damn unpopular with everyone else.
morning any betting view on SNP seat numbers? Hills has a 39 or more bet up.Is there any realistic danger there?
I think about a 10% GB tory lead on the day:
Tory 44%
Labour 34% (Corbyn stays)
Libdems 8%
UKIP 4%
Majority of 68-80 depending on Scotland, good targetting, vote efficiency etc.
Please quote me on this if I am right, let me kindly forget it if I am wrong. Thanx.
That the engaged might have a different mix of views or react differently during a campaign is also reasonable. And that one aspect of this might be firmer views and hence less switching is credible.
But to suggest that this Tory campaign has been so bad that unusually the engaged are switching away in greater numbers is a real intellectual leap with very little evidence. Yes, I see the logic of the argument, but would be surprised if this is what is happening.
On the question of why the polls have been wrong, the discussion here the other day concluded that the British are relatively poor and relatively unpredictable at turning out to vote (and not very self-aware about it either). With the secondary factor that propensity to vote correlates reasonably strongly (via age) with voting intention. Our pollsters are struggling with all their adjustments to understand and model it, particularly as the scenario changes from one election to the next. This seems a better explanation.
As to the campaign, well, the completely non-engaged won't be voting at all. Otherwise, for those who have noticed, what marks out this campaign as unusual is that the government side and leader started with a remarkably good public image (since unusually the election was called during a honeymoon) yet the reality has surprised hugely on the downside, with the opposition in precisely the opposite position.
Thoughtful piece, in more optimstic terms, from a Labour supporter who expects a Tory win:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/straight-talking-win-politics-social-media-corbyn
Summary: poll respondents, who are usually the most entrenched group, are at this election very fickle, because Corbyn.
I don't really buy this. It's not as if Corbyn is/was unknown to the well-informed poll-respondent class.
My twopennorth... Canvassers are saying they haven't noticed a change on the ground. This is certainly true for the Tories. Their share hasn't really changed much. They're still on 44%, which seems about right. The question is more about Labour: have they gone from 28% to 38% in six weeks? I don't see why not. They've certainly squeezed the LDs, Greens, PC and Ukip, and they seem to have picked up a big share of the undecideds. So, yes, the polls are about right.
The Tories will still win by 8-9% though. The current polling average is 6% (same as 2015 election result) but you can add on a few percent because for various reasons the switchers, don't knows and younger voters are less likely to vote even if they're intending to. Even little things like they'll turn up to vote and find they're not registered. Anyway, a small increase in gap since 2015, so a majority of 50 or so. Maybe not worth holding the election for, but still useful.
I think one thing that the Tories failed to take into account in calling this election is that it's only 2 years since the last one and what the polls say in peacetime needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. People's minds don't change much in 2 years, and Brexit is the electoral red herring I always said it was.