There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.
"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
Who actually believes that 1% poll?
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll lead volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.
Trump increasingly has the problem that any mainstream politician, certainly in Europe, benefits bigly in electoral terms from being attacked by him, while being in any way accommodating actually requires you to spend political capital.
Macron and Merkel have both realised this and take every opportunity to quietly feed it (without coming across as equally petty-minded and aggressive). His absurd feud with Khan must be excellent for the Mayor's re-election prospects, every tweet making him look like a genuinely world figure rather than a local politician, and one who is on the right side of the debate in the public consciousness simply by being on the other side from Trump.
Trump has the opposite of cultural capital, and the Great Deal-maker doesn't appear to have a clue that he's making doing any deal on anything, even a mutually beneficial one, incredibly difficult for himself.
I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
If YouGov correctly predict a number of "surprising" results, while still getting the overall total wildly wrong, is that a win for them or not?
If they can work out how to refine the results it is a win.
There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
Have some groups of voters shifted dramatically? Or is a younger cohort of tech-savvy Labour supporters learning how to game the polls? It would be richly ironic (and well-deserved) if their success in conjuring a Labour surge out of thin air merely stiffens the sinews of those determined to resist it.
You're thinking too much about one side of the fence. UKIP's vote has apparently largely decamped.
The interplay with the referendum result almost certainly means more switchers this time. Which was what worried the SNP at the start of the campaign. Those voters whose referendum vote doesn't line up with their normally preferred party, and/or the views of their local candidate, are more likely to switch. Hence the relatively good ratings the LibDems are getting in Inner London (judging from the handful of regional polls), and conversely poorer ones in the West Country.
Back in the real world Corbyn is in County Durham! They didn't specify on sky which one of the seats he is visiting but they seem to range from approximately 4,000 majority to about 15,000.
So is this evidence of a strategic genius who is going to win the GE or alternatively and more likely Labour are in panic mode scuttling around trying to save what they have got?
The 1% poll is the most extreme because Survation not only uses the Youth Tsunami model, like YouGov, but also deletes everyone who won't say or is undecided from their sample without doing any demographic rebalancing. Hence, because very few younger voters are undecided or won't say, they have a weighting towards the young greater even than YG. Realistically the Survation result is impossible even if the young turnnout en masse.
Yep, came to same conclusion. If you knock out Survation the spread of polls looks a little less silly: YG+4, Ipsos+5, Opin+6, PB+8, Orb+9, Kantar+10, ICM+11, CR+12. MoE is 3ish for Ipsos/PB/Kantar, 2% the rest.
If +8 is the true picture, none of them are really that far off.
@Calum - if Labour form the next government, whether with or without a majority, they will try to keep Britain in the single market and the customs union. Will Nicola Sturgeon then withdraw the request for a referendum, or at least put it on hold?
It would kill her justification. She would have to find some way to withdraw the Indy Request.
Technical point for anoraks: the 37.8% the Tories polled in GB at GE2015 is arrived at by including John Bercow's votes in the Conservative total. If it isn't included they polled 37.7%. (To two decimal points, 37.78% and 37.66% respectively. Interesting how one seat can make that sort of difference).
Technical point for anoraks: the 37.8% the Tories polled in GB at GE2015 is arrived at by including John Bercow's votes in the Conservative total. If it isn't included they polled 37.7%. (To two decimal points, 37.78% and 37.66% respectively. Interesting how one seat can make that sort of difference).
Undoubtedly Buckingham would vote Conservative were there a candidate - but there hasn't been one in the last three elections, nor Labour nor Lib Dem.
This is a disgrace when there is a perfectly good alternative way of making the Speaker arrangement. Once elected by MPs, the Speaker would become the MPs' MP for the St Stephens constituency of Westminster and a by-election held for an MP in the Speaker's original constituency.
This would allow the electors in the constituency to have an MP who could debate issues in parliament and vote in parliament, unlike now. Also there would be a full choice of political party to choose from.
75,000 Buckingham electors are currently disenfranchised.
The House of Commons Procedure Committee rejected the St Stephens' solution in 2011. Westminster showing how little it cares for local electors. Shameful.
"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
Who actually believes that 1% poll?
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
Who actually believes that 1% poll?
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.
Well no one is accusing them of herding this time.
I am working on the basis that even May can't screw this pooch in only 3 days. Those who thought Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were not fit to be MPs, let alone Ministers still think so despite several sighs of exasperation at one of the poorest campaigns I can recall. Tory majority of 90.
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can beat the SNP here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...
"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
Who actually believes that 1% poll?
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.
I don't think Brexit was out of pattern at all. Very high turnout = Tories win. Tory in the case of Brexit being real Tory/kippery Tory not Davey/Georgey/TINO Tory.
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...
The House of Commons Procedure Committee rejected the St Stephens' solution in 2011. Westminster showing how little it cares for local electors. Shameful.
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
The lady is clearly starting to believe her own publicity.
"Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place"
LOL....There is not herding and then there is 1-12% spread...Wonder what dates the polling disaster inquiry The Sequel is set for...
Who actually believes that 1% poll?
If there is a 1-12% spread then some pollsters will, surely, have got it right. The GE2015 polling inquiry happened because ALL pollsters got it wrong.
So this time half the room can tell the other half why they were totally wrong.
IF turnout starts to vary significantly from one election to the next, in ways that both cross-correlate with voting intention and are difficult to predict, then accurate polling becomes impossible.
The post-2017 inquiry could be as simple as "the young turned out / the young didn't turn out". Case closed.
Go to wikipedia and look at the voting stats for all the GEs since 1974. Chart the absolute number of votes for all parties and for DNV. Staring you right in the face is the fact that Tories + DNV is basically static. And that LD + Lab is too. There was a wobble (but not a huge one) in 1997, and add UKIP to the Tory/DNV one in 2015. I think some people are saying this decades old stability is going to be broken in a meaningful way for the first time by an army of younger voters getting out and voting Labour. But, historically, when people get off their arses to vote in higher numbers those votes mostly go to the Tories. This time around the Tory vote has been very steady in the mid to high 40s (having swallowed most of UKIP) - all the poll volatility seems to be coming from Labour (eating into the LibDems). For Labour to succeed there will have to be an unprecednted amount of new voters turning up and voting only for them and for them at the same time to swallow a big chunk of the LibDem vote. Ain't impossible - but ain't likely either.
True. If unexpected turnout patterns hadn't happened twice in the last twelve months, we could ignore the possibility entirely.
I don't think Brexit was out of pattern at all. Very high turnout = Tories win. Tory in the case of Brexit being real Tory/kippery Tory not Davey/Georgey/TINO Tory.
Kippery Tories are TINO socialists under the skin. That's why it's all going to pot now.
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can beat the SNP here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
Have some groups of voters shifted dramatically? Or is a younger cohort of tech-savvy Labour supporters learning how to game the polls? It would be richly ironic (and well-deserved) if their success in conjuring a Labour surge out of thin air merely stiffens the sinews of those determined to resist it.
You're thinking too much about one side of the fence. UKIP's vote has apparently largely decamped.
I am ignorant about such matters, but isn't it possible for people to join an online panel, claim to have voted UKIP last time then profess support for Corbyn now? It would be the online equivalent of that familiar letter or comment that begins "I've always voted Conservative but ..." Once there is a suspicion that the polls are being manipulated (and perhaps some are more vulnerable than others) it's hard to deduce anything from them. For example, how does YouGov know where you live, rather than where you claim you live? Or am I presuming too much organised intelligence by party supporters?
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Just making a point if you are in the same lobby more often than not it undermines your point somewhat.
However when your actual record in Government is one of abject failure on Police cuts and you accuse those warning you of crying wolf etc etc etc
Doesnt need spinning it hits you between the eyes unless you are a PB Tory
You didn't answer my earlier question about who you thought was responsible for the terrorist attacks, John?
According to Corbyn May is responsible.
Indeed I just wondered whether our own Corbyn-ite felt the same.
This is a simple question and the answer is that the terrorists are responsible for terrorism. If any politician is hampering the police and the security services from preventing the terrorists succeeding then it is fair to criticise them.
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
There doesn't seem to be a pattern to his visits really, certainly not going to loads of seats that might be in play if the polls more favorable to Labour might match the data or the feedback they have.
What about the movement of some senior Labour figures? Maybe in areas where they think a seat is winnable but Corbyn is not seen as well liked as his party is right now. Those might be better indicators of how it's really going.
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.
Lack of proof that would stand up in court....? They were found guilty in the first round.....
There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?
If it's just a question of too many young people, or too many oldies, or a sample unbalanced by last voting behaviour, they can compensate by weighting according to whatever sub-catogories they think appropriate.
The really interesting - and difficult - question, is what if the type (by vote) of people who respond to polls is different from the type of people who don't, or won't?
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.
In a sense almost all "technicalities" are actually features rather than bugs in the law.
If you injure me but it can't be proved the event was more than an accident, you're not guilty of GBH. If I take your goods but can convince a jury I intended to return the items, I'm not guilty of theft. But in both cases, the purpose of the law is to prevent people being hurt and items being walked off with, so our acquittals are fine, but rather different from showing that I wasn't actually injured or that you were mistaken about the loss of items.
In this case the Conservative Party did (in the CPS's view) overspend against the election limits, which is precisely the wrong the law was intended to prevent. However, the CPS did not consider they had a reasonable prospect of convincing a jury that anyone who signed the (incorrect) numbers was being dishonest. So it's fair enough not to convict people, but the harm the law was intended to prevent did actually happen (in he CPS's view).
Trump increasingly has the problem that any mainstream politician, certainly in Europe, benefits bigly in electoral terms from being attacked by him, while being in any way accommodating actually requires you to spend political capital.
Macron and Merkel have both realised this and take every opportunity to quietly feed it (without coming across as equally petty-minded and aggressive). His absurd feud with Khan must be excellent for the Mayor's re-election prospects, every tweet making him look like a genuinely world figure rather than a local politician, and one who is on the right side of the debate in the public consciousness simply by being on the other side from Trump.
Trump has the opposite of cultural capital, and the Great Deal-maker doesn't appear to have a clue that he's making doing any deal on anything, even a mutually beneficial one, incredibly difficult for himself.
Like Corbyn, Trump backed the Provos. He is the most anti-British US President in living memory.
It's notable that the White House has yet to release ANY official statement on the London attack - instead of which we have the *President of the United States* misrepresenting and trolling the London Mayor.
Perhaps a new low for the moral homunculus in the Oval Office.
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
Film review in today's Guardian (of '71, set during The Troubles):
"..this is a ferocious action movie suffused with nailbiting tension, as Hook tries to stay ahead of provisionals and equally deadly undercover agents."
ie for Graun readers and I daresay plenty of others, The Troubles, PIRA, Warrington, etc are now in the realms of history where, as with much historical analysis, equivalence can be drawn between each opposing side.
In this context, I wonder, especially of course for the young, how much of an effect all this banging on about Jezza and the IRA will have.
PS. great film, '71.
I found the movie very bland. It was Black Hawk Down, on a shoestring budget and nobody compelling, was my major impression.
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
Was it really a technicality that got them off the hook? Lack of intent isn't a technicality.
Lack of proof that would stand up in court....? They were found guilty in the first round.....
Yeah, that was the administrative side of things. They did not think they could prove criminal intent.
Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."
I thought Corbyn was ridiculous saying she should resign due to the fact we will have a General Election on Thursday. It shows poor judgement by Corbyn IMO.
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!
Lol. I wonder whether those Labour candidates in the genuine marginals, who made sure Corbyn wasn't planning to come anywhere near them, are now regretting it?
Just got my first communication from "Ruth Davidson's candidate" in Edinburgh South. Dodgy barchart claiming that only a Ruth Davidson candidate can win here. (The Conservatives were a poor third last time and the seat is held by Labour). The leaflet is clearly identical across Scotland with the local Ruth Davidson candidate mailmerged in. There is a tiny photo of the Ruth Davidson candidate along with five much larger photos of the great woman herself (and interestingly two rather unflattering images of Nicola Sturgeon). The piece makes two claims again and again. Only Ruth Davidson can stop another independence referendum and only her candidates can beat the SNP. It gives no positive reason at all to vote for the Conservatives, makes no mention of the anything that might happen in the UK parliament, of Theresa May, Brexit, the economy, welfare etc.
It is utterly dire.
What are you talking about? Voting against the SNP is a positive reason...
You might have thought the Conservative and UNIONIST Party would have something to say about what's happening in the United Kingdom, especially as they are running the government of it. It is after all an election to the UK parliament. The SNP have a FAR more coherent policy for the UK, even though they want to separate from it, than the Ruth Davidson Party, on the basis of this leaflet.
Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!
Labour are probably worried about a potential swing to the Tories in Northumberland and Teeside, perhaps Gateshead is the most obvious place to hold a rally for those areas.
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
The exit poll actually asks people after voting at selected polling stations. If the young don't turnout they won't be in the exit poll.
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
No it fucking wouldn't, as well you know.
Or maybe you'd like to be charged with say rape, without any grounds for that charge, by a vindictive ex-girlfriend and to then have the charges rightly thrown out - but to be forever known as "that rapist'?
If your party gets reduced to one seat on Thursday, it will be one seat too many.
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
They are asking voters walking out of polling stations how they voted. Suspect they will be able to cross-check who they asked against the electoral roll to gauge turnout pretty well.
the problem we've got is that everyone is assuming that ukip voters in former labour seats are going to vote tory, they might not.
No, Kippers are going to pour out and vote for Jeremy 'open the borders and let them all in" Corbyn......
I don't talk to traitors. (scum who put their party first country second). People who live in essex put their country people in places like berkshire, devon put themselves first. Traitors to the state.
Go outside and knock on strangers doors and scare them with the IRA.
Jeremy Corbyn's Garden Tax is way more effective.....
It spooked a few on here, but I've not heard that one mentioned at all in real life - if someone hears about it for the first time and believes the most negative interpretation, I could see it being effective, but I wonder how much it is coming through.
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
The exit poll is real samples at real polling stations.
I assume they will be able to determine the age of the people they interview...
Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.
This was debated here a while back. The consensus was that, with YG (which is the only poll you can really volunteer for) it would be difficult, and need some level or organisation, but not impossible. But unlikely. I would have thought the fact that YG has been joined by other non-panel pollsters producing similar results, based on self-certified high youth turnouts, suggests that we are probably not looking at manipulation as one of the explanations here?
I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
It's bold, but what if it is not that much of a change election.
Personally I think the UKIp vote might not go back to the Tories as much as thought, Lab will surge but not by as much as they hope, and the LDs will do about as well as predicted, leaving a smallish majority of 40.
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Strong and stable? His quote didn't last the day...
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."
I thought Corbyn was ridiculous saying she should resign due to the fact we will have a General Election on Thursday. It shows poor judgement by Corbyn IMO.
The press story they wanted was "Mrs May cut police numbers when she was home sec". But this isn't news. "Corbyn calls for PM to resign" is news, and got the story they wanted a lot of prominence in the media.
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.
OGH was saying the other day that the Tory leaders visit to the south west was indicative of the narrowing of the polls narrative. I disagreed with that because it is a slightly different dynamic for the Tories and LD as the nearest challenger. But Corbyn visiting rock solid Labour seats 3 days before the vote is not good at all for Labour.
To be truthful I think the opinion polls are not right (I have my own views on why, which I will keep to myself). I suspect the Tories are miles out in front and it will be a landslide Tory victory.
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
I don't think (but stand to be corrected) that exit polls have the same problem because they don't seek to speak to a prescribed number of students, pensioners etc.
They just ask people who actually vote at selected polling stations the catchment area of which is likely to be reflective of the population. If the catchment for the polling station is 20% 18-24 year olds and 30% over 65s, but in the event an amazing surge amongst the youth means 30% of voters are in the youngest group and only 25% pensioners... well, there's no need for adjustment as the pollsters talk to them outside the polling station.
the problem we've got is that everyone is assuming that ukip voters in former labour seats are going to vote tory, they might not.
No, Kippers are going to pour out and vote for Jeremy 'open the borders and let them all in" Corbyn......
I don't talk to traitors. (scum who put their party first country second). People who live in essex put their country people in places like berkshire, devon put themselves first. Traitors to the state.
Go outside and knock on strangers doors and scare them with the IRA.
Jeremy Corbyn's Garden Tax is way more effective.....
It spooked a few on here, but I've not heard that one mentioned at all in real life - if someone hears about it for the first time and believes the most negative interpretation, I could see it being effective, but I wonder how much it is coming through.
That'll be "real life" feedback from Torbay I suspect.
It's worth remembering that control orders were watered down not because May or the coalition government chose to do this of their own free will but because of a decision by the Lords (the court) that they breached various human rights provisions.
Those are the human rights provisions under the HRA which Labour brought in. Any time any suggested amendment is proposed to make it harder for terrorists/criminals to operate, the Left - and, to be fair, others - have argued hard against this.
TPIMs are the most the government can do given the restrictions on it as a result of our laws and international commitments. We can argue about whether the laws should be changed or whether we should be signatories to the ECHR but to suggest that the coalition deliberately weakened our anti-terrorist controls voluntarily or from conviction is a travesty.
Corbyn has never believed in taking action against terrorists, as his Parliamentary record shows. Whether that is because he is a libertarian or because he is a supporter of terrorism or because he does not see it as much of a problem or for some other reasons, people can assess for themselves.
As for our approach to Islamist terrorism and Islamist extremism in our country - as per this from Tatchell https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/871646549616603137, all parties have been pretty feeble and appeasing: from Howard thinking that throwing money at so-called "community leaders" would help to Blair closing the BaE SFO investigation at the behest of the Saudis to all governments cosying up to the Muslim Brotherhood and various ghastly Middle Eastern regimes etc. All of them have a pretty poor record.
Why? All of them have failed properly to engage with the nature of Islam as both a religion and a political ideology; all of them have failed or refused to understand the nature of the extremist winds which have been blowing through the Muslim world since at least 1979; all of them have failed to understand that importing a significant credal culture into a secular democracy poses some real challenges which cannot be resolved by mouthing platitudes and all of them have been too frit to challenge bad behavior or to stand up for the values they claim to believe in.
There is a lot that could be done with YouGov's type of model. It seems fairly clear that some groups of voters have shifted quite dramatically from 2015. It also seems fairly clear that these groups are not evenly distributed across constituencies. By modelling how these groups of voters have changed voting intention, the ultimate seat tally should be more accurate than uniform national swing.
The polling companies have the necessary data to do this.
What I'm unclear about is how the confidence intervals work. For improved Conservative (or Labour) performance, how is the model tweaked from their best guess? Is it simply by reinserting uniform national swing by the back door or do YouGov model the different groups on different voting preferences?
Does it matter if the original sample is not random?
If it's just a question of too many young people, or too many oldies, or a sample unbalanced by last voting behaviour, they can compensate by weighting according to whatever sub-catogories they think appropriate.
The really interesting - and difficult - question, is what if the type (by vote) of people who respond to polls is different from the type of people who don't, or won't?
The thing that really surprised me was when they said they had to dial 20 phone numbers to get one response. As far as I can tell this makes all opinion polls self-selecting voodoo polls and I'm surprised that they do as well as they do.
The fundamental assumption underpinning the mathematical basis of opinion polling - that the sample is random - is completely shot to pieces.
Much as I've been entertained by the reactions to the opinion polls in this campaign it does disturb me that they have such an influence on the campaign narrative when they are so fundamentally flawed.
Can anyone answer this question? The reason for the divergence of polls is that they cant agree on turnout of young. But might this not be a problem for the BBC exit poll at 10pm on Thursday? I notice its being done by Mori Ipsos which is one of the firms which think there will be a high young turnout. How will Mori overcome this problem in the exit poll so that they get the actual turnout of young right?
They stand outside polling booths and ask people to submit a second secret ballot.
I find YouGov's model very interesting. They've made a serious attempt to try to model how a change election might work. There will be some very surprising results on Thursday.
It's bold, but what if it is not that much of a change election.
Personally I think the UKIp vote might not go back to the Tories as much as thought, Lab will surge but not by as much as they hope, and the LDs will do about as well as predicted, leaving a smallish majority of 40.
You make a very fair point. From the anecdotes, there are a lot of voters who don't want to vote Conservative but who don't see an alternative. They might decide simply not to vote.
Not sure the Tories necessarily want to move the conversation to possible electoral law offences.
Played 12, won 11 and one rained off (sub judice), I'd say they were very up for it. Not even the DPP would bottle out of this one given the voluntary confession inWestcombe's later tweet
Would it not be more exact to say: Played 12, lost 11 but got through on a technicality; Then one postponed for clearer weather?
No it fucking wouldn't, as well you know.
Or maybe you'd like to be charged with say rape, without any grounds for that charge, by a vindictive ex-girlfriend and to then have the charges rightly thrown out - but to be forever known as "that rapist'?
More to the point if some idiot popped up on a blog and posted a comment accusing you of rape, the owner of said blog might have to call his lawyers.
I think Mr Clipp should shut up about this before he falls through the rather thin ice he's treading on.
Enough is indeed enough. I don't have much confidence that either the Tories or Labour will do much about this or as much as ought to be done. I have, though, much much less confidence in Corbyn precisely because of his past record, because I don't believe that the sensible things he's been saying recently really represent a genuine change of mind and because of who his closest allies are and what they have said and done.
But I also don't think this particular debate will much help the Tories. Whether more police would help or not is moot. But it does feed into an impression that sometimes the Tories know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Good security does not come cheap. If the aid budget can be protected how much more should this apply to the security/police budget?
If I - as an "Anyone But Corbyn" voter - feels like this, can we really be sure that the Tories will win?
I increasingly feel Corbyn might do it. I hope, I really hope, I'm wrong. It will IMO be a moral, political and economic disaster for Britain. But if the last year has taught us anything, it should have taught us that "it should not happen" does not mean "it won't happen".
If I am wrong you can all laugh and jeer at me on Thursday night. If not, I shall be a political seer.
FWIW Corbyn is speaking in Gateshead tonight. Gateshead...
Does it really matter where he is? 99.999% of people get their information via mediums of one sort or another, not by being in a specific location.
But why bother? This seat is going red no matter what. We've not even had any Lib Dem or Tory literature. Nothing at all!
Labour are probably worried about a potential swing to the Tories in Northumberland and Teeside, perhaps Gateshead is the most obvious place to hold a rally for those areas.
They just want film of him being adored, not challenged.
Just to add to my previous point, if poll manipulation is happening it's reasonable to assume it started after the election announcement and not before, and therefore the prior figures are more likely to be correct.
Indeed.
Has any Tory canvasser found anyone who actually switched their vote away from us Blues since the election campaign began?
Was talking to my dad yesterday about Thursday, hes old school metal worker from Derbyshire, always voted Labour. Told me he "won't be wasting his time" this election
Terrorism Act 2000 May: Absent from the final vote (there was no Second Reading) Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 May absent at Third Reading Fourteen-day detention in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 May: Voted against it Control Orders The creation of control orders was contained within the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. May: Voted against it introduction of ID cards 2006. May voted against it The coalition government, with Mrs May as home secretary, would go on to scrap the scheme in 2010. Ninety-day detention Drafted in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings May voted against it Counter-terrorism Act 2008 This legislation gave powers to the police to question terrorist suspects after they had been charged. It also tried to extend detention without charge to 42 days May: Absent from the vote Legislation for closed press free courts. May: absent at Third Reading
Owen Jones tweeted on Saturday night about what a great time he and his friends were having in a West End bar, while innocent people were dying in the street barely a mile away. Then it was all "eat, drink and be merry - show them we won't be cowed". Today it's all panic stations, resign, bring back the beat bobbies, something must be done. He must have had one hell of a hangover if it lasted 36 hours.
Corbyn retracts his call for May to resign and says leave it till Thursday and qualifies it as 'a lot of people would want her to resign if she were still HS' She isn't and u turning on his call within two hours is pathetic in the extreme. He's flailing.
It's notable that the White House has yet to release ANY official statement on the London attack - instead of which we have the *President of the United States* misrepresenting and trolling the London Mayor.
Perhaps a new low for the moral homunculus in the Oval Office.
Good news for Lab in London bad news for his designated hand holder methinks
Comments
Macron and Merkel have both realised this and take every opportunity to quietly feed it (without coming across as equally petty-minded and aggressive). His absurd feud with Khan must be excellent for the Mayor's re-election prospects, every tweet making him look like a genuinely world figure rather than a local politician, and one who is on the right side of the debate in the public consciousness simply by being on the other side from Trump.
Trump has the opposite of cultural capital, and the Great Deal-maker doesn't appear to have a clue that he's making doing any deal on anything, even a mutually beneficial one, incredibly difficult for himself.
@Mr_Eugenides: May needs to tell Trump to fuck off in no uncertain terms. It would be worth 20 seats at least.
If +8 is the true picture, none of them are really that far off.
A Corbyn supporter at Magdalene!!
Magdalene bans Labour posters
https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2017/06/05/breaking-magdalene-bans-labour-posters-95463
This is a disgrace when there is a perfectly good alternative way of making the Speaker arrangement. Once elected by MPs, the Speaker would become the MPs' MP for the St Stephens constituency of Westminster and a by-election held for an MP in the Speaker's original constituency.
This would allow the electors in the constituency to have an MP who could debate issues in parliament and vote in parliament, unlike now. Also there would be a full choice of political party to choose from.
75,000 Buckingham electors are currently disenfranchised.
The House of Commons Procedure Committee rejected the St Stephens' solution in 2011. Westminster showing how little it cares for local electors. Shameful.
https://order-order.com/2017/06/05/mike-smithsons-libdem-tip-letters/
I'm nowhere near Khan politically, but give me him any day over a rancid clown like Trump.
I was watching the film Brewster's millions and I think they must have filmed part of that in Trumps apartment. It had not changed in 30 years!
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/871718550674825218
I am working on the basis that even May can't screw this pooch in only 3 days. Those who thought Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were not fit to be MPs, let alone Ministers still think so despite several sighs of exasperation at one of the poorest campaigns I can recall. Tory majority of 90.
It is utterly dire.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/871731062241722369
"The lesson of this election will be that you never take on the baby boomers. Theresa May did, and look what happened to her."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/election-2017-triumph-wealthy/
The polls might not be herding, but the models certainly are.
Freudian.
If any politician is hampering the police and the security services from preventing the terrorists succeeding then it is fair to criticise them.
What about the movement of some senior Labour figures? Maybe in areas where they think a seat is winnable but Corbyn is not seen as well liked as his party is right now. Those might be better indicators of how it's really going.
The really interesting - and difficult - question, is what if the type (by vote) of people who respond to polls is different from the type of people who don't, or won't?
If you injure me but it can't be proved the event was more than an accident, you're not guilty of GBH. If I take your goods but can convince a jury I intended to return the items, I'm not guilty of theft. But in both cases, the purpose of the law is to prevent people being hurt and items being walked off with, so our acquittals are fine, but rather different from showing that I wasn't actually injured or that you were mistaken about the loss of items.
In this case the Conservative Party did (in the CPS's view) overspend against the election limits, which is precisely the wrong the law was intended to prevent. However, the CPS did not consider they had a reasonable prospect of convincing a jury that anyone who signed the (incorrect) numbers was being dishonest. So it's fair enough not to convict people, but the harm the law was intended to prevent did actually happen (in he CPS's view).
@steve_hawkes: Should the PM resign? Jeremy Corbyn: "No, I think we should vote to decide who are MPs are and who our Government is going to be."
Perhaps a new low for the moral homunculus in the Oval Office.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/871733774001868802
Lab majority 14,000 - Should be a big enthusiastic crowd out for Corbyn I'd have thought - this is like Trump visiting Missouri.
If it really didn't matter surely campaigns would be based somewhere as it would be a more efficient use of time and money.
Or maybe you'd like to be charged with say rape, without any grounds for that charge, by a vindictive ex-girlfriend and to then have the charges rightly thrown out - but to be forever known as "that rapist'?
If your party gets reduced to one seat on Thursday, it will be one seat too many.
I assume they will be able to determine the age of the people they interview...
Personally I think the UKIp vote might not go back to the Tories as much as thought, Lab will surge but not by as much as they hope, and the LDs will do about as well as predicted, leaving a smallish majority of 40.
To be truthful I think the opinion polls are not right (I have my own views on why, which I will keep to myself). I suspect the Tories are miles out in front and it will be a landslide Tory victory.
They just ask people who actually vote at selected polling stations the catchment area of which is likely to be reflective of the population. If the catchment for the polling station is 20% 18-24 year olds and 30% over 65s, but in the event an amazing surge amongst the youth means 30% of voters are in the youngest group and only 25% pensioners... well, there's no need for adjustment as the pollsters talk to them outside the polling station.
It's worth remembering that control orders were watered down not because May or the coalition government chose to do this of their own free will but because of a decision by the Lords (the court) that they breached various human rights provisions.
Those are the human rights provisions under the HRA which Labour brought in. Any time any suggested amendment is proposed to make it harder for terrorists/criminals to operate, the Left - and, to be fair, others - have argued hard against this.
TPIMs are the most the government can do given the restrictions on it as a result of our laws and international commitments. We can argue about whether the laws should be changed or whether we should be signatories to the ECHR but to suggest that the coalition deliberately weakened our anti-terrorist controls voluntarily or from conviction is a travesty.
Corbyn has never believed in taking action against terrorists, as his Parliamentary record shows. Whether that is because he is a libertarian or because he is a supporter of terrorism or because he does not see it as much of a problem or for some other reasons, people can assess for themselves.
As for our approach to Islamist terrorism and Islamist extremism in our country - as per this from Tatchell https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/871646549616603137, all parties have been pretty feeble and appeasing: from Howard thinking that throwing money at so-called "community leaders" would help to Blair closing the BaE SFO investigation at the behest of the Saudis to all governments cosying up to the Muslim Brotherhood and various ghastly Middle Eastern regimes etc. All of them have a pretty poor record.
Why? All of them have failed properly to engage with the nature of Islam as both a religion and a political ideology; all of them have failed or refused to understand the nature of the extremist winds which have been blowing through the Muslim world since at least 1979; all of them have failed to understand that importing a significant credal culture into a secular democracy poses some real challenges which cannot be resolved by mouthing platitudes and all of them have been too frit to challenge bad behavior or to stand up for the values they claim to believe in.
The fundamental assumption underpinning the mathematical basis of opinion polling - that the sample is random - is completely shot to pieces.
Much as I've been entertained by the reactions to the opinion polls in this campaign it does disturb me that they have such an influence on the campaign narrative when they are so fundamentally flawed.
I think Mr Clipp should shut up about this before he falls through the rather thin ice he's treading on.
Enough is indeed enough. I don't have much confidence that either the Tories or Labour will do much about this or as much as ought to be done. I have, though, much much less confidence in Corbyn precisely because of his past record, because I don't believe that the sensible things he's been saying recently really represent a genuine change of mind and because of who his closest allies are and what they have said and done.
But I also don't think this particular debate will much help the Tories. Whether more police would help or not is moot. But it does feed into an impression that sometimes the Tories know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Good security does not come cheap. If the aid budget can be protected how much more should this apply to the security/police budget?
If I - as an "Anyone But Corbyn" voter - feels like this, can we really be sure that the Tories will win?
I increasingly feel Corbyn might do it. I hope, I really hope, I'm wrong. It will IMO be a moral, political and economic disaster for Britain. But if the last year has taught us anything, it should have taught us that "it should not happen" does not mean "it won't happen".
If I am wrong you can all laugh and jeer at me on Thursday night. If not, I shall be a political seer.
Has any Tory canvasser found anyone who actually switched their vote away from us Blues since the election campaign began?
Though I's share it
Just asking for a friend (of Jeremy). Liz at Buck House is keen to know too.
She isn't and u turning on his call within two hours is pathetic in the extreme. He's flailing.