Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » GE2017 heralds the return of two party politics

15791011

Comments

  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:
    He's talking about Penistone and Stocksbridge judging by his tweets.
    Good God. I'm feeling a bit better about that 375+ betslip I have now.
    That place should be safer than a VERY SAFE THING, in a safe
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635
    Dadge said:

    Scott_P said:
    They almost have to be in a parallel universe to be able to suggest with a straight face that the Tories might be as low as 268 seats. No-one is forcing them to publish something that makes them look so daft.
    SNP 17 is even more ridiculous actually.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/871668073513840640

    I wonder why the shit bucket wasn't tipped after Manchester? Perhaps YouGov is more reflective of what the Tory polls are telling them, or is it just making sure that the police numbers issue is deflected?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,941
    Scott_P said:
    This gives the Tories a 76 seat range, 65 for Labour with SNP getting between 17 and 52 and LibDems between 7 and 21.
    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,006

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    They were very much able to trigger bombs with radio devices.
    But mobiles make it much more easier and devastating.
    Easier maybe, but there a big downsides to using a mobile for a trigger, but how is it more devastating?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,408
    Seems very unfair from Hilton tbh.
    It would be wiser to wait for a proper review to determine what, if anything, should have been done differently.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,527
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'll take 40-1 on Tories 344+ if Yougov truly believe that is 95% confidence interval.
    95% is 19/1 surely? I'd still take it though.
    No, 2.5% over <- 95% -> 2.5% under.
    Ah yes, the bet would be on half the error.
    I assume Yougov staff are eager sellers of Tory seats on the spreads, if they place any trust at all in their numbers?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635


    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.

    This will be the election that finishes Yougov off I think.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:
    People aren't necessarily being naughty over postal votes, but they might be able to make a guess about turnout if postal votes in Labour areas are coming in more slowly than in 2015.
    P&S a 6,700 lab majority with 13,000 ukip votes
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:


    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.

    This will be the election that finishes Yougov off I think.
    I believe despite their previous political polling failures their business is stronger than ever.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:
    People aren't necessarily being naughty over postal votes, but they might be able to make a guess about turnout if postal votes in Labour areas are coming in more slowly than in 2015.
    That's my feeling on this - its all guess work , with a hint of 'educated'.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    The elephant in the room is this government's support for Saudi Arabia, a country which indirectly sends money to Isis through oil revenue. Isis would be far less powerful if it lost its Saudi cash cow.
    The UK should stop the selling of arms to a country which has such ties.

    Theresa May's leadership ratings have fallen like a stone showing that throwing money at a campaign doesn't work if you are working with unappealing material. At least Cameron was personable and could think on his feet.

    The Saudi Government is as much against the Wahhabi 'Isis' islamists as we are. You can't hold governments responsible for all the citizens within the country.

    Trump just returned from futher agreements with the Saudis to fight Isis terrorism. Trump ahead of the game?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,408

    Scott_P said:
    This gives the Tories a 76 seat range, 65 for Labour with SNP getting between 17 and 52 and LibDems between 7 and 21.
    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.
    And yet I would think Tories > 344 is pretty likely... well over 50% IMO.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    Clearly they shouldn't. But remember in 2015, the first indication that things were going badly wrong for Miliband was not the exit poll, but that article (Labour Uncut?) that said the postal votes were not going well. So it may well be on the money.

    That said, if the youth vote really is going to turn out massively, it will be on the day, not through postals.
    From my assessments of postal votes so far, I agree with you entirely. If the youth come out, small majority, if they turnout as they normally do, it will be a very different result.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815

    Pulpstar said:

    OchEye said:

    Pulpstar said:

    dr_spyn said:

    John Woodcock about to have incoming rants.

    https://twitter.com/BBC_Cumbria/status/871641385639837696

    Depends if he's a MP come Friday morning...
    This is really really bizarre reasoning from Woodcock - if Corbyn wins then there is no way on God's green earth Woodcock (Who will probably still be an MP if Corby does win) will be able to demand that of him.
    He's trying to see if a kite can fly. Unfortunately, made of lead, not really a chance. On the other hand, his constituency party will not be happy bunnies and may decide, sometime, before the next election that a new candidate might be required....
    I reckon every other doorstep in Barrow is "I'd love to vote for YOU John, BUT". Probably one of the worst places in the whole country for Corbynism.
    Are there any other really poor seats for Corbyn? I can think of Postsmouth seats, Gosport, Bradley Stoke and Filton, Plymouth seats as they all have defence connections, and Barrow, other Cumbria for nuclear, and I guess trident seats around aldermarston so Reading Newbury and Basingstoke.
    Fylde - Defence plus Nuclear. Safe Tory though.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    Opposition parties call on May to publish suppressed report into Saudi funding of UK extremists.

    She is refusing

    Why? What is she hiding?

    We cant go on like this
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,758

    IanB2 said:

    Essexit said:

    Lib Dems on 8%...I know that is what they got in 2015 and Tiny Tim has had a crap campaign, but I don't know I just feel like really, there has to be soft lefties remain types who like SO are disgusted by Corbyn in the way Miliband certainly didn't.

    On the other hand, around 32% of the 2015 LD vote went for Leave. I know some of that (including a couple of commenters on here) are staying with the LDs, but some of them must have switched to Con (if they want hard Brexit) or Lab (soft).
    The hope of beating expectations for the LDs is that their vote is similar to last time but that propensity to vote tactically increases, now that the coalition years are receding.

    Part of Corbyn's rise is driven by positive support (particularly amongst younger female voters, looking at the breakdowns), but also by disillusion with May and the Tory campaign. It's credible that in Tory seats where Labour isn't the challenger, a chunk of the latter will vote for the LDs (or Green, PC etc) to beat the Tories. The LDs being squeezed further in Tory/Labour battlegrounds would keep their overall vote unchanged (although since a typical poll will only have one or two people in each seat, given the few seats they are fighting seriously it is equally possible that the polls don't reflect their actual performance there at all)
    Con seats where the LD could make a serious challenge?

    There are about three of them. On the other hands they could boost their % a couple of points across the south-east which will do them no good.
    LibDems are favourites in the top 12 of this list and shorter than 2/1 against in the next 10.

    Orkney and Shetland
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Ceredigion
    EdinBorough West
    Sheffield, Hallam
    Twickenham
    Leeds North West
    East Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Cambridge
    Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Richmond Park
    North Norfolk
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Lewes
    Eastbourne
    Bath
    Ross, Skye and Lochaber
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Southport
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,366
    edited June 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    But, then public opinion might have supported a much more savage response from the authorities.
    What would you have considered a 'much more savage response' in the context of the Troubles?

    I'd imagine much of the time (like so many of these nasty little wars), a much more savage response was what the IRA wanted.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Pulpstar said:

    twitter.com/andlawton/status/871668970788720640

    Ho ho ho.

    Too many tweets....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    "Theresa May must take responsibility for massive police and security services cuts"

    She isn't. She won't

    We cant go on like this
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635
    edited June 2017
    Orkney and Shetland
    Ceredigion
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Edinborough West
    Twickenham
    North East Fife
    East Dunbartonshire
    Sheffield, Hallam
    Leeds North West

    Do I win a prize if that is the final Lib Dem list ?

    Looks very plausible to me that those 9 are won and no others. I've arranged into my personal order of probability too.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,006

    The elephant in the room is this government's support for Saudi Arabia, a country which indirectly sends money to Isis through oil revenue. Isis would be far less powerful if it lost its Saudi cash cow.
    The UK should stop the selling of arms to a country which has such ties.

    Errr if that was the case then logically we ought to sell them more arms thus depriving them of cash that they might otherwise send to IS.
  • BigIanBigIan Posts: 198

    Scott_P said:
    This gives the Tories a 76 seat range, 65 for Labour with SNP getting between 17 and 52 and LibDems between 7 and 21.
    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.
    The ranges scream: we haven't got a scooby.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    It seems Bigjohnowls has morphed into a left wing Plato over the past few weeks.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ICM and JackW - The Gold Standard - Strong And Stable.

    Con Landslide

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,527
    Pulpstar said:
    So another idiot proves David Cameron's maxim about Twitter.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Corbyn getting very shouty.

    Too much adrenalin?

    Reminds me of Kinnock in Sheffield - Well alright! Well alright!
  • bardigianibardigiani Posts: 19
    Guido strikes again. Apparently Corbyn said that we mustn't make 'value judgements' about people returning from Syria.

    https://order-order.com/2017/06/05/corbyn-defended-fighters-returning-from-syria/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635
    BigIan said:

    Scott_P said:
    This gives the Tories a 76 seat range, 65 for Labour with SNP getting between 17 and 52 and LibDems between 7 and 21.
    It looks as though the uncertainty is so large it would be surprising if they got it wrong.
    The ranges scream: we haven't got a scooby.
    Given the stuff we've seen floating about on twitter, canvass returns etc etc the BOTTOM Labour figure won't be reached.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761

    The elephant in the room is this government's support for Saudi Arabia, a country which indirectly sends money to Isis through oil revenue. Isis would be far less powerful if it lost its Saudi cash cow.
    The UK should stop the selling of arms to a country which has such ties.

    Theresa May's leadership ratings have fallen like a stone showing that throwing money at a campaign doesn't work if you are working with unappealing material. At least Cameron was personable and could think on his feet.

    The Saudi Government is as much against the Wahhabi 'Isis' islamists as we are. You can't hold governments responsible for all the citizens within the country.

    Trump just returned from futher agreements with the Saudis to fight Isis terrorism. Trump ahead of the game?
    We need to see what the report says.

    Why is it being witheld??
  • glwglw Posts: 10,006

    It seems Bigjohnowls has morphed into a left wing Plato over the past few weeks.

    That's not fair, Plato made a lot of good points at times, and she was basically right about Trump having a lot more appeal than was generally accepted.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,758
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    On the core projections YouGov has since Saturday moved the Tories down three seats and Labour up seven. And - interestingly - the LibDems up from 10 to 13.

    I am getting the YG panel VI poll every other day now, latest yesterday.

    It appears there is still a gradual trend away from the Tories, amongst their 50,000 at least, in seats, although vote shares haven't shifted. Support for the emergence of tactical voting?
    LibDems quite sharply up from 3-18 to 7-21 in a day. I wonder what is driving that?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    JackW said:

    ICM and JackW - The Gold Standard - Strong And Stable.

    Con Landslide

    What majority is ARSE predicting for Conservatives?
  • PatrickPatrick Posts: 225
    glw said:

    It seems Bigjohnowls has morphed into a left wing Plato over the past few weeks.

    That's not fair, Plato made a lot of good points at times, and she was basically right about Trump having a lot more appeal than was generally accepted.
    How long is she banned for? Has she served her sentence yet?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Dadge said:

    JonathanD said:


    My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad.
    My read on how the public will reach overall is this.........
    For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........

    proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
    I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
    The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.

    Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
    This is a bit of a straw man. I don't think the govt's policy is to allow terrorist attacks to happen but to make sure that the police get there soon enough each time to keep the number of casualties within acceptable limits.

    The police have been complaining that cuts are reducing their capability to play their part in the fight against terrorism. May accused them of crying wolf - do you agree? But it's not just the police, of course. There are question marks about the inadequacy of funding in Prevent, in intelligence and in dealing with social media.

    I'd like to see the specific examples of how the police think the cuts have lead to a reduction in their ability to fight terrorism - since there was no issue with lack of firearm officers on Saturday, what are their other complaints. Then we can judge whether the cuts had an effect or not.

    Prevent - Labour wanted to end it.

    Intelligence - do you want 24/7 surveillance of all individuals who have expressed fundamentalist views and how much do you think that would cost?

    Social Media - that requires legislation rather than funding and since Jeremy Corbyn opposed every piece of anti-terror legislation since 1983 - good luck with that argument.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    On the core projections YouGov has since Saturday moved the Tories down three seats and Labour up seven. And - interestingly - the LibDems up from 10 to 13.

    I am getting the YG panel VI poll every other day now, latest yesterday.

    It appears there is still a gradual trend away from the Tories, amongst their 50,000 at least, in seats, although vote shares haven't shifted. Support for the emergence of tactical voting?
    LibDems quite sharply up from 3-18 to 7-21 in a day. I wonder what is driving that?
    Mike's campaign?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,941
    Pulpstar said:

    Orkney and Shetland
    Ceredigion
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Edinborough West
    Twickenham
    North East Fife
    East Dunbartonshire
    Sheffield, Hallam
    Leeds North West

    Do I win a prize if that is the final Lib Dem list ?

    Looks very plausible to me that those 9 are won and no others. I've arranged into my personal order of probability too.

    Not Cambridge?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    That IS interesting though...
    Surely, the inner envelopes containing the ballot slips aren't opened until the polls have closed. The outer envelope contains a specimen signature together with the voter's DoB for verification purposes. I therefore very much doubt the veracity of this story.
    The postal vote opening is a ritual in which observers can get very good at sampling. Believe it or don't believe it.
    That is nonsense.

    To answer the OP's point, the ballot paper has to be removed from the inner envelope to verify that the number on the back matches with the number of the paper sent to that voter.
    Which makes you ask what the point of the 2 envelope system is...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,854
    May is dressed more soberly than usual.
  • MattyNethMattyNeth Posts: 60
    JackW said:

    ICM and JackW - The Gold Standard - Strong And Stable.

    Con Landslide

    As the Conservative Overall Majority price drifts out further to 1.26...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,727

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    But, then public opinion might have supported a much more savage response from the authorities.
    What would you have considered a 'much more savage response' in the context of the Troubles?

    I'd imagine much of the time (like so many of these nasty little wars), a much more savage response was what the IRA wanted.
    In most cases, there's a kind of unspoken bargain between the terrorists and security services. Each accepts limits on what they're willing to do. But, if the IRA had been carrying out random bombings on the Tube, or of pop concerts, I imagine the authorities would have responded much like the Israelis.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    That IS interesting though...
    Surely, the inner envelopes containing the ballot slips aren't opened until the polls have closed. The outer envelope contains a specimen signature together with the voter's DoB for verification purposes. I therefore very much doubt the veracity of this story.
    The postal vote opening is a ritual in which observers can get very good at sampling. Believe it or don't believe it.
    I thought the exit pole ignored postal votes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,894
    Barnesian said:

    calum said:

    calum said:

    HYUFD said:

    calum said:

    Scott_P said:
    Have SLAB already crossed back over SCON? - my sense is they have and the Barchart Party suspects this as well:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/yougov-contradicts-survation-by.html
    Interesting use of the word 'polls' (plural), when they seem to be ignoring the other 'latest' Scottish poll by Survation that has Scons & SLab within 2 pts of each other.
    Most polls have SCons on 25 to 30% and SLAB on 20 to 25% though Comres has SLab lower and Survation higher
    I think SCON will come 3rd as SLAB "surges" back to c.25% - Will be interesting to watch SCON & their MSM fanboys spinning 3rd as a win !
    I wouldn't be surprised to see SCON, SLAB and the Nationalists all score in the 30s.
    The LibDems may get <5% but still get more seats than SLAB !</p>
    LibDems are odds on favourites in 5 Scottish seats (and in 6 English seats and 1 Welsh seat).

    They are also shorter than 2/1 against in another 10 seats.

    Weighted average number of seats, based on top 40 targets is 16 seats.
    Five?

    - O&S
    - Edinburgh West
    should both be odds on

    - Fife NE
    - Dunbartonshire East
    should be narrowly odds against

    Is CS&ER the other one?
    Of course, if you want a potential surprise, I'd go for Argyll & Bute, where the LDs did very well in the Holyrood elections.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635
    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    On the core projections YouGov has since Saturday moved the Tories down three seats and Labour up seven. And - interestingly - the LibDems up from 10 to 13.

    I am getting the YG panel VI poll every other day now, latest yesterday.

    It appears there is still a gradual trend away from the Tories, amongst their 50,000 at least, in seats, although vote shares haven't shifted. Support for the emergence of tactical voting?
    LibDems quite sharply up from 3-18 to 7-21 in a day. I wonder what is driving that?
    Cambridge, Burnley, Yardley, Bermondsey going off twitter this morning.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Pulpstar said:

    Orkney and Shetland
    Ceredigion
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Edinborough West
    Twickenham
    North East Fife
    East Dunbartonshire
    Sheffield, Hallam
    Leeds North West

    Do I win a prize if that is the final Lib Dem list ?

    Looks very plausible to me that those 9 are won and no others. I've arranged into my personal order of probability too.


    Is your judgement clouded by being a Lib Dem supporter?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited June 2017

    Has there ever been a more pointless model?

    If I understand the way in which the model is constructed then comparing the model forecast with the results should enable you to say some interesting things about the election. That is useful. As a predictive tool, worse than useless because of the false confidence in the very wide uncertainty range.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,727

    The elephant in the room is this government's support for Saudi Arabia, a country which indirectly sends money to Isis through oil revenue. Isis would be far less powerful if it lost its Saudi cash cow.
    The UK should stop the selling of arms to a country which has such ties.

    Theresa May's leadership ratings have fallen like a stone showing that throwing money at a campaign doesn't work if you are working with unappealing material. At least Cameron was personable and could think on his feet.

    The Saudi Government is as much against the Wahhabi 'Isis' islamists as we are. You can't hold governments responsible for all the citizens within the country.

    Trump just returned from futher agreements with the Saudis to fight Isis terrorism. Trump ahead of the game?
    We need to see what the report says.

    Why is it being witheld??
    Quite possibly, it contains very sensitive intelligence.
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 251
    It does not play well for a Prime Minister to refuse to publish a report which is so relevant to the threat from terror. Why is she afraid of offending the Saudis?

    Theresa May is now appearing more weak as the days go on, she could be gone soon whatever happens in the election.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    IanB2 said:

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    That IS interesting though...
    Surely, the inner envelopes containing the ballot slips aren't opened until the polls have closed. The outer envelope contains a specimen signature together with the voter's DoB for verification purposes. I therefore very much doubt the veracity of this story.
    The postal vote opening is a ritual in which observers can get very good at sampling. Believe it or don't believe it.
    That is nonsense.

    To answer the OP's point, the ballot paper has to be removed from the inner envelope to verify that the number on the back matches with the number of the paper sent to that voter.
    Ok. We are all making it up. My predictions can be ignored. Just like they could be in 2015 when I was considered to be ramping.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635

    Pulpstar said:

    Orkney and Shetland
    Ceredigion
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Edinborough West
    Twickenham
    North East Fife
    East Dunbartonshire
    Sheffield, Hallam
    Leeds North West

    Do I win a prize if that is the final Lib Dem list ?

    Looks very plausible to me that those 9 are won and no others. I've arranged into my personal order of probability too.


    Is your judgement clouded by being a Lib Dem supporter?
    No.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    edited June 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    I know they're not supposed to know how people have voted - but can they know who has voted?
    You do know, agents/candidates are invited to view them, but the crime is to report on what they show.
    Party agents should not be able to see which way people have voted. But the council workers who check the signatures will surely get to see which way the vote has gone?

    Council workers are people with political allegiances too.
    They verify face down, and the counting agents are watching them do it. Therefore both staff and agents are seeing (and not seeing) the same thing. Once verified they are locked back into ballot boxes and sealed. The only way someone at the council would have any more information is if they came back afterwards, took a peek, and then re-sealed the box. The penalties if caught doing so would be so severe as to be unthinkable, and they are supposed to be locked away securely in any case.
    The issue is that some people seem able to work out what the votes cast are by staring through the semi-transparent voting papers. I've tried and I can't, but my eyesight is not fantastic. Lots of other people claim to be able to and they seem to have been mostly right in the past.

    It is indeed then illegal to publicise what you think you've seen. The normal response is a slap on the wrist, I think, unless you make a habit of it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/871668073513840640

    I wonder why the shit bucket wasn't tipped after Manchester? Perhaps YouGov is more reflective of what the Tory polls are telling them, or is it just making sure that the police numbers issue is deflected?
    Because Labour didn't try to weaponise terror in the way they have tried to now?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,348
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    But, then public opinion might have supported a much more savage response from the authorities.
    What would you have considered a 'much more savage response' in the context of the Troubles?

    I'd imagine much of the time (like so many of these nasty little wars), a much more savage response was what the IRA wanted.
    In most cases, there's a kind of unspoken bargain between the terrorists and security services. Each accepts limits on what they're willing to do. But, if the IRA had been carrying out random bombings on the Tube, or of pop concerts, I imagine the authorities would have responded much like the Israelis.
    The IRA did deliver a phone warning before the Manchester Arndale bombing in 1996.

    Had they have not done, then the fatalities would have been in the hundreds.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,270
    edited June 2017

    Guido strikes again. Apparently Corbyn said that we mustn't make 'value judgements' about people returning from Syria.

    https://order-order.com/2017/06/05/corbyn-defended-fighters-returning-from-syria/

    I'm shocked, he says that on record and yet not a peep on the hounding and attempted legal action taken against British soldiers who were in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder why...
  • PatrickPatrick Posts: 225
    philiph said:

    notme said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    That IS interesting though...
    Surely, the inner envelopes containing the ballot slips aren't opened until the polls have closed. The outer envelope contains a specimen signature together with the voter's DoB for verification purposes. I therefore very much doubt the veracity of this story.
    The postal vote opening is a ritual in which observers can get very good at sampling. Believe it or don't believe it.
    I thought the exit pole ignored postal votes.
    He was going back to Warsaw and didn't really care.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    I think I might have to log off PB until 10pm on Thursday as it appears it is now astroturfing central.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited June 2017

    It does not play well for a Prime Minister to refuse to publish a report which is so relevant to the threat from terror. Why is she afraid of offending the Saudis?

    Theresa May is now appearing more weak as the days go on, she could be gone soon whatever happens in the election.

    What Saudi government funding do you think the Manchester bomber or London attackers had? I doubt it costs much to buy some knifes and hire a B&Q van.

    From the reports, the London bomber radicalised himself over YouTube, which I guess means we should go after a bunch of US tech VCs.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Lib Dems gambled on fighting the election on reversing Brexit.

    Now the top topic is security, they seem to have nothing to say about how to stop terrorism.

    Things can only get worse not better.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    The elephant in the room is this government's support for Saudi Arabia, a country which indirectly sends money to Isis through oil revenue. Isis would be far less powerful if it lost its Saudi cash cow.
    The UK should stop the selling of arms to a country which has such ties..

    Those damn Tories...

    image
    image
    image
  • camelcamel Posts: 815

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    Tardi?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,257
    Scott_P said:
    A shame there isn't a Monster Raving Loony candidate called Votey McVoteface.....
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    Crime Traveller is a thing!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    There will be no need for a response. Jeremy will solve terrorism through talking, obviously.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    I think I might have to log off PB until 10pm on Thursday as it appears it is now astroturfing central.

    Why bother astroturfing here anyway? It's not going to change anybody's mind. Seems like a waste of effort to me.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    May not focusing on security but the overall picture in her speech. Brave.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,348

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    So you've seen/read Minority Report then?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    JonathanD said:

    Dadge said:

    JonathanD said:


    My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad.
    My read on how the public will reach overall is this.........
    For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........

    proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
    I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
    The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.

    Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
    This is a bit of a straw man. I don't think the govt's policy is to allow terrorist attacks to happen but to make sure that the police get there soon enough each time to keep the number of casualties within acceptable limits.

    The police have been complaining that cuts are reducing their capability to play their part in the fight against terrorism. May accused them of crying wolf - do you agree? But it's not just the police, of course. There are question marks about the inadequacy of funding in Prevent, in intelligence and in dealing with social media.

    I'd like to see the specific examples of how the police think the cuts have lead to a reduction in their ability to fight terrorism - since there was no issue with lack of firearm officers on Saturday, what are their other complaints. Then we can judge whether the cuts had an effect or not.
    Is having "the right number of firearms officers" the only contribution the police can make to the fight against terrorism?
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    glw said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    They were very much able to trigger bombs with radio devices.
    But mobiles make it much more easier and devastating.
    Easier maybe, but there a big downsides to using a mobile for a trigger, but how is it more devastating?
    It's not cellphones that would have made the big difference it's portable, extremely low cost microcontrollers with connectivity, sensors and power switching capability, like arduinos.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    The development of personal Tardises will be funded by using them to go back in time and make a fortune on the spread markets.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,348
    camel said:

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    Tardi?
    Nope, Tardises.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,941

    Lib Dems gambled on fighting the election on reversing Brexit.

    Now the top topic is security, they seem to have nothing to say about how to stop terrorism.

    Things can only get worse not better.

    Maybe not axing 20,000 police officers would have been a good start.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/2016/09/crime-traveller_1.jpg
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    You're doing it as well. Clearing up the mess is not the only role the police have in fighting terrorism.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,527
    Strong speech from the PM.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    I think I might have to log off PB until 10pm on Thursday as it appears it is now astroturfing central.

    Why bother astroturfing here anyway? It's not going to change anybody's mind. Seems like a waste of effort to me.
    It's very odd. There are some obviously spurious claims on all sides to be involved in this election that don't add up. I'm here purely because I'm interested in politics, especially Scottish politics and I have zero knowledge other than some local knowledge of general trends in Norfolk. Having said that, if I give a cricket tip, take it ;)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,672
    I would bet that people distinguish between acts of terrorism and care more about bombings in London and Manchester than Syria or Craigavon, until some other evidence is provided.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Oh - Now this IS interesting.

    https://twitter.com/MerryMichaelW/status/871623672456499200

    EC&A ought to be one of the seats Labour will outperform the most in the whole country, surely ?

    Hmm, has someone been looking at postal votes.

    Very naughty if true
    I know they're not supposed to know how people have voted - but can they know who has voted?
    You do know, agents/candidates are invited to view them, but the crime is to report on what they show.
    A certain labour mp, their social media "expert", got in a lot of trouble if I remember correctly..
    Kerry McCarthy, 2010. Tweeted actual vote numbers from the first day of the PV count and got a police caution for her troubles.
    Thanks to eagle eyed PBers.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited June 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    But, then public opinion might have supported a much more savage response from the authorities.
    What would you have considered a 'much more savage response' in the context of the Troubles?

    I'd imagine much of the time (like so many of these nasty little wars), a much more savage response was what the IRA wanted.
    In most cases, there's a kind of unspoken bargain between the terrorists and security services. Each accepts limits on what they're willing to do. But, if the IRA had been carrying out random bombings on the Tube, or of pop concerts, I imagine the authorities would have responded much like the Israelis.
    Another factor for the IRA was to keep its supporters both in Ireland and America onside, so there evolved a system of attacks against "justified" targets preceded by coded warnings to evacuate -- moving away from murdering civilians in pubs (or horses in parks or 8-year-olds at concerts) that caused a drop in donations.

    Edit: of course it is often said that what ended the IRA's campaign was 9/11 after which terrorism was no longer seen by Americans as justifiable.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    ICM and JackW - The Gold Standard - Strong And Stable.

    Con Landslide

    What majority is ARSE predicting for Conservatives?
    The ARSE is retired but ....

    The JackW Conservative Bedwetting Index is bone dry at Con Maj of 100
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Dadge said:

    JonathanD said:

    Dadge said:

    JonathanD said:


    My feeling is that this will not actually benefit the Tory party. May's personal ratings might rise a bit due to leadership in a crisis, but the undertone to commentary seems to be 'cuts bad' and they don't seem to have a line to trot out on that. Maybe because they can't. It happened and technical arguments aside for what difference it makes, it looks bad and feels bad and on a cursory level without regard to the economy, smells bad.
    My read on how the public will reach overall is this.........
    For a government to have one terrorist atrocity in a GE campaign might be considered unfortunate, to have two...........

    proposals. Is there such thing as the Conservative Research Department still?
    I don't disagree with any of that. The problem is time. Coming up with a convincing argument and strategy in 3 days is impossible. However, perhaps the fact that we are in the position of 3 days to save the UK (being hyperbolic deliberately) speaks volumes about the disengagement of the political class from the reality on the ground.
    The answer is fairly simple. The attackers were dead within 8 minutes despite there being 3 of them in a chaotic urban area. That indicates the force levels of the police were exactly right.

    Those complaining need to indicate in what way the police were stretched on Saturday night.
    This is a bit of a straw man. I don't think the govt's policy is to allow terrorist attacks to happen but to make sure that the police get there soon enough each time to keep the number of casualties within acceptable limits.

    The police have been complaining that cuts are reducing their capability to play their part in the fight against terrorism. May accused them of crying wolf - do you agree? But it's not just the police, of course. There are question marks about the inadequacy of funding in Prevent, in intelligence and in dealing with social media.

    I'd like to see the specific examples of how the police think the cuts have lead to a reduction in their ability to fight terrorism - since there was no issue with lack of firearm officers on Saturday, what are their other complaints. Then we can judge whether the cuts had an effect or not.
    Is having "the right number of firearms officers" the only contribution the police can make to the fight against terrorism?
    Yes, broadly.

    The Prevent program, the correct legislation and the promotion of an integrated Muslim community are all non-police.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    of course eight minutes from emergency call to 3 dead terrorists must be down to lack of police resources........
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    ICM and JackW - The Gold Standard - Strong And Stable.

    Con Landslide

    What majority is ARSE predicting for Conservatives?
    The ARSE is retired but ....

    The JackW Conservative Bedwetting Index is bone dry at Con Maj of 100
    I think we were all hoping the ARSE would get a second wind.... so to speak...
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    On the core projections YouGov has since Saturday moved the Tories down three seats and Labour up seven. And - interestingly - the LibDems up from 10 to 13.

    I am getting the YG panel VI poll every other day now, latest yesterday.

    It appears there is still a gradual trend away from the Tories, amongst their 50,000 at least, in seats, although vote shares haven't shifted. Support for the emergence of tactical voting?
    LibDems quite sharply up from 3-18 to 7-21 in a day. I wonder what is driving that?
    Cambridge, Burnley, Yardley, Bermondsey going off twitter this morning.
    Can't see LDs winning any of those. Nowhere near in Yardley.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    One big difference is that while PIRA were willing to risk their lives, they never carried out suicide attacks (they forced other people to).

    It's very difficult to provide complete protection, when the attacker is willing to die as a martyr.

    There was a piece in The Times a few weeks ago which said if the IRA had the technology available now they would have caused a lot more carnage.

    They'd have loved having mobile phones that triggered bombs for example
    But, then public opinion might have supported a much more savage response from the authorities.
    What would you have considered a 'much more savage response' in the context of the Troubles?

    I'd imagine much of the time (like so many of these nasty little wars), a much more savage response was what the IRA wanted.
    In most cases, there's a kind of unspoken bargain between the terrorists and security services. Each accepts limits on what they're willing to do. But, if the IRA had been carrying out random bombings on the Tube, or of pop concerts, I imagine the authorities would have responded much like the Israelis.
    Another factor for the IRA was to keep its supporters both in Ireland and America onside, so there evolved a system of attacks against "justified" targets preceded by coded warnings to evacuate -- moving away from murdering civilians in pubs (or horses in parks or 8-year-olds at concerts) that caused a drop in donations.

    Edit: of course it is often said that what ended the IRA's campaign was 9/11 after which terrorism was no longer seen by Americans as justifiable.
    4 years after the Good Friday agreement?
  • Tony_MTony_M Posts: 70
    edited June 2017

    Lib Dems gambled on fighting the election on reversing Brexit.

    Now the top topic is security, they seem to have nothing to say about how to stop terrorism.

    Things can only get worse not better.

    Maybe not axing 20,000 police officers would have been a good start.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html
    Would those 20,000 police officers have all been on duty on London Bridge and at Borough on Saturday night?

    And even if they had, could they have stopped that attack?

    Did all those extra officers,in the various forces, stop the attacks in 2005?

    What point are you trying to make?

    It appears that the meme from Labour HQ today is suggesting that the officers that took out the scum in 8 minutes weren't good enough. Nice.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Lololol May just played the no time for a novice card!
    Fabulous
  • camelcamel Posts: 815

    camel said:

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    Tardi?
    Nope, Tardises.
    Grammar is not my strong point, TSE. I can see this site is edited by the alumnuses of very good schools. :)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,366
    camel said:

    So, to be clear: if 8 minutes from first 999 call to the three terrorists lying dead and riddled with 50 bullets is evidence of insufficient police resources and preparation, how effective can we expect the response to be under Labour?

    Police officers will be issued with personal Tardises, enabling them to travel back to the moment before the crime was committed.
    Tardi?
    Tardi would not be good branding for a device intended to transport you to before an event.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,257

    It does not play well for a Prime Minister to refuse to publish a report which is so relevant to the threat from terror. Why is she afraid of offending the Saudis?

    Theresa May is now appearing more weak as the days go on, she could be gone soon whatever happens in the election.

    Oh look, Roserees is back. Is there can election on?
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Tony_M said:

    Lib Dems gambled on fighting the election on reversing Brexit.

    Now the top topic is security, they seem to have nothing to say about how to stop terrorism.

    Things can only get worse not better.

    Maybe not axing 20,000 police officers would have been a good start.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html
    Would those 20,000 police officers have all been on duty on London Bridge and at Borough on Saturday night?

    And even if they had, could they have stopped that attack?

    Did all those extra officers,in the various forces, stop the attacks in 2005?

    What point are you trying to make?
    You talk to any officer in London and they will tell you the force is underfunded and underresourced.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,854
    May is channelling Gordon Brown, almost using his 'no time for a novice' slogan.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kjohnw said:

    of course eight minutes from emergency call to 3 dead terrorists must be down to lack of police resources........
    Eight minutes is due to the Met having armed response vehicles cruising round central London 24x7. I'm not sure how it refutes the police cuts argument and even if it does, since Plato was barred there are not many floating voters left on pb.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    KLAXON!

    @tamcohen: May channelling Gordon Brown "no time for a novice" saying this is no time for "learning on the job"
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited June 2017

    Lib Dems gambled on fighting the election on reversing Brexit.

    Now the top topic is security, they seem to have nothing to say about how to stop terrorism.

    Things can only get worse not better.

    Maybe not axing 20,000 police officers would have been a good start.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html
    Maybe not spending all the money so the government had to cut stuff would have been a good start.

    image
This discussion has been closed.