David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
On Wakefield, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of DH's post. What he said was:
I'm not a whisky drinker but I have two miniatures in the pantry: a 10 year old Laphroaig and a 18 year old Glenfiddich. Which one for the exit poll tomorrow?
Glenfiddy is smooth but boring. Laphroaig kicks you in the nuts but leaves you wanting more.
The 18 year old Glenfiddich is a bit of a disappointment compared to the 15, which is softer and sweeter. It doesn't have a very distinctive character.
If you're not a fan of peated whiskies, the Laphroaig may well knock you off your feet. I've grown to enjoy it over the years but I would recommend adding just a few drops of water.
I am a lover of the Laphroaig and have been for many, many years. But it is not a Whisky suitable for drinking on all occasions. Late in the evening, after a good meal, it is hard to beat or late on a cold winter's afternoon after a day in the open air. It is not, in my view, an all day whisky; I would not, for example, fill my flask with it when going out for a morning on the local shoot (the Grouse is good enough for those sort of events).
I don't hold with putting water in it either. A separate glass of still mineral water and take them in alternate sips seems the best way to of drinking a fine whisky to me.
I have been at a family funeral, the second in two weeks. It was a magnificent Brideshead-style Anglo-Irish Catholic service followed by a brilliant, funny and boozy wake that my much beloved cousin would have loved!
I see that @david_herdson has joined me in thinking that Corbyn might just do it.
I don't claim anything approaching your combined predictive value, but I feel similarly.
OTOH the Tories are now sending leaflets out highlighting Labour's garden/council tax increases and what it will cost the average NW6 homeowner - about £12,000 p.a.
Bolton vox pops, including older golfers all trending Corbyn.
DH may well be on the zeitgeist.
The three golfers are still voting Tory.
It's a bit like that ridiculously interpreted Scottish poll earlier today which found 31% of voters more likely to support independence if the Conservatives won - whilst simultaneously finding the rock solid anti-independence regardless vote at 44%. Which basically means that most of the 31% were, er, Independence supporters!
Interesting that unlike 2015 no-one on here ca be accused of herding. Mr Herdson, cyclefree doubtful of majority, Bigjohnowls at 100+ (A feeling I share). What a weird election! I expect some shocking gains and losses, with wild swings. Swinging like Cap d'Agde on a sunny day!
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
On Wakefield, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of DH's post. What he said was:
Just a further anecdote, from the doorstep, but I have not seen new Labour voters so fired up by anyone since TB. They will come out to vote in numbers. Not enough to win back Preseli, but enough to see of challenges in many marginals, and even gaining one or two.
The thing is both the pollsters and Herdson could be right, Con increase their lead but piling it up in the wrong places.
Maybe if it's a 7 point lead, but if it's a double digit like ICM then no way will the Tories only have 325 with that vote share. We can be pretty certain IMO Labour's vote is inefficient and skewed towards cities and Uni towns as a young voter surge is playing a key part in their better poll ratings.
OK, so YouGov pre-turnout and special tweaks is a lead of 3, ICM pre-turnout and special tweaks is a lead of 4. These turn into 7 and 12 respectively after the tweaks. I remain a bit sceptical about them, but a key point is that Tory voters look like getting out anyway, Labour voters are less certain, so a lot may depend on thr gound game tomorrow.
Just a further anecdote, from the doorstep, but I have not seen new Labour voters so fired up by anyone since TB. They will come out to vote in numbers. Not enough to win back Preseli, but enough to see of challenges in many marginals, and even gaining one or two.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Cheers for the kind words this evening and yes, I am going off for some rest after typing this post - though I will be up ready for a 5am delivery start tomorrow and will probably have a baby feed between now and then too.
And yes, I am just one person reporting from one part of one constituency and it's certainly possible to over-extrapolate a small sample. However, in theory, everyone I was contacting today should be Con supporters (which is why we're contacting them) and while there were clearly some positive remarks, I felt that there were too many silences or outright negative comments. I didn't feel like the tide was moving the right way.
That said, I also know that we should do well out of the ex-UKIP vote and in Wakefield that has particular potency given Creagh's A50 vote and the Leave/Remain split. I'd also say that the true baseline is the 2010 election and not the 2015 one, as last time we only picked a candidate in March and gave Labour two years headstart. This time, as in 2010, we fought on roughly level terms.
However, it's clear that policing, pensions, social care and other 'spend other people's money' issues have cut through and are switching votes. Hence my prediction.
However, just as one should never tweet when drunk or exhausted (unless SeanT, perhaps), so one probably shouldn't post in such a condition and almost certainly shouldn't bet. (For clarification, I'm not drunk, by the way - I've barely had time for a drink since the campaign began, bar a friend's mini stag do a couple of weekends ago).
But trying to view it with a clear head, I still don't like it. We're ignoring the polls because - ? Because until not long ago they didn't accord with experience. But tonight, for me, they did. The polls were right at the local elections a month ago. A Con lead of 4-5 would produce a knife-edge Con majority, if that. And I'm not convinced the lead will be that big.
And with that, I'm signing off until tomorrow. All the best, and if I can't wish you all good luck politically, at least I hope I can wish a profitable day. If it's as bad a result as it might be, you'll need the money.
I have been at a family funeral, the second in two weeks. It was a magnificent Brideshead-style Anglo-Irish Catholic service followed by a brilliant, funny and boozy wake that my much beloved cousin would have loved!
I see that @david_herdson has joined me in thinking that Corbyn might just do it.
I don't claim anything approaching your combined predictive value, but I feel similarly.
OTOH the Tories are now sending leaflets out highlighting Labour's garden/council tax increases and what it will cost the average NW6 homeowner - about £12,000 p.a.
I do think a Tory win probable - but also that there is more than enough uncertainty to justify covering the possibility of a hung Parliament.
"If it's promoting the national party and national policies, then regardless of whether it mentions the constituency name or not then it's national spend," an Electoral Commission spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, adding that the situation is different if it talks "about a candidate's views and a candidate's policies".
The end result is that Conservative paid-for Facebook ads that only appear to voters in a single targeted constituency and look remarkably like localised adverts can be legally counted as national spending.
In one example from Westminster North, obtained by BuzzFeed News, the advert repeatedly mentions "your constituency", features the words "Westminster North" in the graphic, and emphasises that local voters in the constituency could determine who gets into Downing Street.
I got a leaflet this morning warning me that a vote for UKIP would mean Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister, allegedly targeted for the constituency where UKIP aren't even fielding a candidate.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
No, as she will add about half the 2015 UKIP vote onto Dave's share
I'm not a whisky drinker but I have two miniatures in the pantry: a 10 year old Laphroaig and a 18 year old Glenfiddich. Which one for the exit poll tomorrow?
Glenfiddy is smooth but boring. Laphroaig kicks you in the nuts but leaves you wanting more.
The 18 year old Glenfiddich is a bit of a disappointment compared to the 15, which is softer and sweeter. It doesn't have a very distinctive character.
If you're not a fan of peated whiskies, the Laphroaig may well knock you off your feet. I've grown to enjoy it over the years but I would recommend adding just a few drops of water.
I am a lover of the Laphroaig and have been for many, many years. But it is not a Whisky suitable for drinking on all occasions. Late in the evening, after a good meal, it is hard to beat or late on a cold winter's afternoon after a day in the open air. It is not, in my view, an all day whisky; I would not, for example, fill my flask with it when going out for a morning on the local shoot (the Grouse is good enough for those sort of events).
I don't hold with putting water in it either. A separate glass of still mineral water and take them in alternate sips seems the best way to of drinking a fine whisky to me.
I picked up a £25 bottle of Talisker Skye tonight with £7 knocked off it for tomorrow night. I promptly gave £2 of it back when I walked out of the store to help a driver short on petrol to get back home. Laphroaig is lovely, but my favourite is Caol Isla, the bottle I had was simply divine.
OK, so YouGov pre-turnout and special tweaks is a lead of 3, ICM pre-turnout and special tweaks is a lead of 4. These turn into 7 and 12 respectively after the tweaks. I remain a bit sceptical about them, but a key point is that Tory voters look like getting out anyway, Labour voters are less certain, so a lot may depend on thr gound game tomorrow.
Yougov's final 2015 poll had it tied, ICM had Labour ahead by 1, the Tories won by 7
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
No, as she will add about half the 2015 UKIP vote onto Dave's share
Labour could also be adding from UKIP and the Greens.
One thing I would be instinctively wary of is the number of seats that are apparently in play despite requiring pretty unprecented swings (outside of 1997). There must be a danger in some of the simultaneous buoyant Conservative/gloomy Labour reports that canvassers are underestimating just how big some of these majorities are. When you're defending 20%+majorities it requires a hell of a lot of bad news for that bad news to actually equate to a loss of a seat. But even a 5-6% swing is going to feel pretty bad on the doorsteps, even if not realistically threatening.
And with that, I'm signing off until tomorrow. All the best, and if I can't wish you all good luck politically, at least I hope I can wish a profitable day. If it's as bad a result as it might be, you'll need the money.
My house comes off the market immediately, and I hunker down for the next 5 years, if the worst happens.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
On Wakefield, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of DH's post. What he said was:
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
Actually, I think we will win Wakefield but it will be against trend and it will be down to local factors, both demographic and political.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Which would be funnier, a majority of
Exactly Dave Dave+1 Dave -1
Any of them mean au revoir surely
Nope, they won't depose someone who has just been elected with a majority. 3/4 seats short however...
There are now 3 Tory majority spreads (50-74, 75-99 and 100-124) with better odds than no majority. Only 3 or 4 days ago no majority was shorter odds than any of the majority spreads. Punters are obviously increasingly confident but are they just following the trend blindly?
I feel a lot of JC supporters will be fired up, but also feel a lot of trad Labour supporters just won't be able to hold their nose enough to vote for him, Theresa just isn't enough of a Tory toff or City spiv that lukewarmLabour supporters will drag themselves to the polling booth to try and stop her.
However, it's clear that policing, pensions, social care and other 'spend other people's money' issues have cut through and are switching votes. Hence my prediction.
There's an argument that exhaustion with austerity drove both Brexit over the line, and possibly might do so tomorrow (mathematically) for Corbyn too.
In which case, the fundamentals are really economic and we really are addicted to state spending, and believe we can have our cake and eat it.
It might have been better for Osborne to cut deeper, faster, in the 2010-2015 parliament, and get it largely over with in 5 years, rather than chipping away at it for 10 years+.
Cheers for the kind words this evening and yes, I am going off for some rest after typing this post - though I will be up ready for a 5am delivery start tomorrow and will probably have a baby feed between now and then too.
(snip)
Thanks, David - sympathies for a rough day, and that's very clear. I remember feeling just like that when going round the day before the election in 2015, and (notoriously) I didn't share the impression here (as a candidate I didn't feel I could), so hats off for the honesty, and we all wish you well regardless.
I think that Tory WWC votes sometims have a mirage-like element - they seem to be coming over for the first time ever, but on the day habit reasserts itself.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
On Wakefield, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of DH's post. What he said was:
Just a further anecdote, from the doorstep, but I have not seen new Labour voters so fired up by anyone since TB. They will come out to vote in numbers. Not enough to win back Preseli, but enough to see of challenges in many marginals, and even gaining one or two.
I'm reading mainly people saying they are going to vote Labour on my facebook feed, but seeing as I know where they all live (they mainly voted Labour last time and all live in safe Labour seats) I'm not sure whether that is a groundswell or not and whether they are the tip of an iceberg. That is the issue with this election, voters are moving about for once.
The thing is both the pollsters and Herdson could be right, Con increase their lead but piling it up in the wrong places.
That would not seem to fit the narrative of this election - I.e, Ukippy areas swinging more to the Tories and Labour advancing in London/the South
Half of UKIP's vote in 2015 was in the South inc. London.
But how many of them were previously Labour and / or LibDem voters ?
The Conservatives are not going to pick up that many former UKIP voters in southern England.
To take an example, South West Wiltshire in 2010 was
Con 51.7 LD 30.5 Lab 11.5 UKIP 5.5 IND 0.9
In 2015 it was
Con 52.7 (+1.0) UKIP 17.5 (+12.0) Lab 13.5 (+2.0) LD 10.6 (-19.9) Green 5.8 (+5.8)
The LDs are not trying as hard as usual (probably over in Bath), UKIP are not standing this time, Labour are well organised, so I'm betting a higher proportion of UKIP in this seat go Labour than in most other areas, pushing them into second.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Which would be funnier, a majority of
Exactly Dave Dave+1 Dave -1
I'm editing PB tomorrow from 9.58pm through to 6am., if the majority is sub Dave, I think you won't get any threads from as I'll be literally ROFLing
I'm not a whisky drinker but I have two miniatures in the pantry: a 10 year old Laphroaig and a 18 year old Glenfiddich. Which one for the exit poll tomorrow?
Glenfiddy is smooth but boring. Laphroaig kicks you in the nuts but leaves you wanting more.
The 18 year old Glenfiddich is a bit of a disappointment compared to the 15, which is softer and sweeter. It doesn't have a very distinctive character.
If you're not a fan of peated whiskies, the Laphroaig may well knock you off your feet. I've grown to enjoy it over the years but I would recommend adding just a few drops of water.
I am a lover of the Laphroaig and have been for many, many years. But it is not a Whisky suitable for drinking on all occasions. Late in the evening, after a good meal, it is hard to beat or late on a cold winter's afternoon after a day in the open air. It is not, in my view, an all day whisky; I would not, for example, fill my flask with it when going out for a morning on the local shoot (the Grouse is good enough for those sort of events).
I don't hold with putting water in it either. A separate glass of still mineral water and take them in alternate sips seems the best way to of drinking a fine whisky to me.
I picked up a £25 bottle of Talisker Skye tonight with £7 knocked off it for tomorrow night. I promptly gave £2 of it back when I walked out of the store to help a driver short on petrol to get back home. Laphroaig is lovely, but my favourite is Caol Isla, the bottle I had was simply divine.
Caol Isla is the best for me too, though all Islay whisky is divine.
I am a little short of brandy for tommorow, only a little Metaxa left. Does it go with popcorn?
I'm not a whisky drinker but I have two miniatures in the pantry: a 10 year old Laphroaig and a 18 year old Glenfiddich. Which one for the exit poll tomorrow?
Glenfiddy is smooth but boring. Laphroaig kicks you in the nuts but leaves you wanting more.
The 18 year old Glenfiddich is a bit of a disappointment compared to the 15, which is softer and sweeter. It doesn't have a very distinctive character.
If you're not a fan of peated whiskies, the Laphroaig may well knock you off your feet. I've grown to enjoy it over the years but I would recommend adding just a few drops of water.
I am a lover of the Laphroaig and have been for many, many years. But it is not a Whisky suitable for drinking on all occasions. Late in the evening, after a good meal, it is hard to beat or late on a cold winter's afternoon after a day in the open air. It is not, in my view, an all day whisky; I would not, for example, fill my flask with it when going out for a morning on the local shoot (the Grouse is good enough for those sort of events).
I don't hold with putting water in it either. A separate glass of still mineral water and take them in alternate sips seems the best way to of drinking a fine whisky to me.
I picked up a £25 bottle of Talisker Skye tonight with £7 knocked off it for tomorrow night. I promptly gave £2 of it back when I walked out of the store to help a driver short on petrol to get back home. Laphroaig is lovely, but my favourite is Caol Isla, the bottle I had was simply divine.
Ted Heath's favoured tipple, reportedly (Talisker). Apologies if I just ruined it...
However, the Conservatives have now spotted a previously underused loophole that means even adverts that mention a specific constituency – but not the local candidate or local policies – can be paid out of the national campaign budget, which can be up to £19 million.
"If it's promoting the national party and national policies, then regardless of whether it mentions the constituency name or not then it's national spend," an Electoral Commission spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, adding that the situation is different if it talks "about a candidate's views and a candidate's policies".
The end result is that Conservative paid-for Facebook ads that only appear to voters in a single targeted constituency and look remarkably like localised adverts can be legally counted as national spending.
Interesting. They are applying it also to printed direct mailshots. So I received one purportedly from Theresa May the other day - mentioning this named constituency three times and ending with the statement "So vote for me."
I do wonder though if the Electoral Commission is overstepping itself. Surely the Conservatives must be sailing very close to the wind. So has the EC's interpretation of electoral law been challenged in court? Ultimately it is the judges not the EC that decides, and the law can't be changed retrospectively. And, if the Supreme Court eventually found against the Conservatives, would we not face a rerun of the general election in every marginal constituency up and down the country?
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
On Wakefield, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of DH's post. What he said was:
Just come back from last-minute leafleting. Change of mind on earlier. I think Corbyn is just going to do this. The polls are right. Con 300.
Still think we'll take Wakefield due to Creagh's idiocy/principled stand (delete as preferred) over triggering A50.
Winning Wakefield and losing seats (net) would take some doing.
Perhaps, but there are particular circumstances in that seat which means the swing there is unlikely to mirror the country as a whole.
Yes I know Wakefield is a bit special however there are loads of seats with UKIP voters who will move Conservative. So I think it unlikely that many seats will be lost. I do see at least as many gains as losses so I will stick with a 70 to 100 majority.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Which would be funnier, a majority of
Exactly Dave Dave+1 Dave -1
All of the above.
I'd have to take back about 500 posts about her superior electoral appeal...
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
Actually, I think we will win Wakefield but it will be against trend and it will be down to local factors, both demographic and political.
If Wakefield goes, it's hard to see anything other than a Tory lead, even if only a small one.
The polling is still pretty solid for the Tories at 43/44%.
The thing is both the pollsters and Herdson could be right, Con increase their lead but piling it up in the wrong places.
Piling up where though?
Home counties etc.
IMO if anything the Tory vote will become more efficiently distributed in the Home Counties compared to last time. Brexit will cost them votes in safe seats in many areas in the SE.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Which would be funnier, a majority of
Exactly Dave Dave+1 Dave -1
Any of them mean au revoir surely
Nope, they won't depose someone who has just been elected with a majority. 3/4 seats short however...
Hmmm. Hopefully she'd resign. If she can't beat Corbyn by more than that with Ukip and the Lib Dems dead men walking it's nothing but a failure and certainly no mandate.
The thing is both the pollsters and Herdson could be right, Con increase their lead but piling it up in the wrong places.
That would not seem to fit the narrative of this election - I.e, Ukippy areas swinging more to the Tories and Labour advancing in London/the South
Half of UKIP's vote in 2015 was in the South inc. London.
But how many of them were previously Labour and / or LibDem voters ?
The Conservatives are not going to pick up that many former UKIP voters in southern England.
To take an example, South West Wiltshire in 2010 was
Con 51.7 LD 30.5 Lab 11.5 UKIP 5.5 IND 0.9
In 2015 it was
Con 52.7 (+1.0) UKIP 17.5 (+12.0) Lab 13.5 (+2.0) LD 10.6 (-19.9) Green 5.8 (+5.8)
The LDs are not trying as hard as usual (probably over in Bath), UKIP are not standing this time, Labour are well organised, so I'm betting a higher proportion of UKIP in this seat go Labour than in most other areas, pushing them into second.
When I Baxter YouGov I get a con majority of 48, so all in the clear for the Tories basically?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the swing in different seats. I suspect there will be a fairly good night in Scotland which will help matters for the Tories, but they will underwhelm in London. Time will tell.
David Herdson (who I regard as a top level poster on here) is concerned we (CON) won't win Wakefield.
He is correct in this analysis. We won't win Wakefield. But that was always the case. We were never going to win a seat that LAB has held since 1931. But that doesn't justify a projection that we will get 325 max.
JackW and JohnO are top level analysts here. They have both projected a CON maj 100. But that won't happen because again it is dependent on CON winning lots of seats which we haven't won since 1931. That won't happen.
BUT we are 10% clear. We may struggle in London and South although I am feeling more comfortable now. We will do ok in Midlands and North eg will win Wolverhampton SW, Barrow, Chester maybe Copeland. We will also win at least 10 seats in Scotland.
Ave it has always projected a 10% lead and around a 40 maj - it might be slightly better than that.
But, but - what about Bootle?
I stick to my prediction of a 1979-type result, if you add SNP to Labour.
Part of me wonders if the voters might deliver some poetic justice, and return May with an almost identical majority to Dave in GE2015.
Which would be funnier, a majority of
Exactly Dave Dave+1 Dave -1
All of the above.
I'd have to take back about 500 posts about her superior electoral appeal...
Chortle.....and the bit about Francis Maude from earlier please?
Ultimately it is the judges not the EC that decides, and the law can't be changed retrospectively. And, if the Supreme Court eventually found against the Conservatives, would we not face a rerun of the general election in every marginal constituency up and down the country?
Very unlikely that a party or any individuals would get into trouble for following Electoral Commission guidelines, even if the court decides the guidelines were wrong.
I think this is the first figure we've heard from "senior Tories" in this campaign. Do we think this might be expectations management? If so, the Tories presumably think that a 70+ majority is nailed on. That would chime with those Labour constituencies that are requesting help to defend seats which seem to suggest that they are in danger of losing 50-70 seats.
Comments
Get thee hence...
https://goo.gl/images/BN1Ak0
I don't hold with putting water in it either. A separate glass of still mineral water and take them in alternate sips seems the best way to of drinking a fine whisky to me.
Swinging like Cap d'Agde on a sunny day!
And yes, I am just one person reporting from one part of one constituency and it's certainly possible to over-extrapolate a small sample. However, in theory, everyone I was contacting today should be Con supporters (which is why we're contacting them) and while there were clearly some positive remarks, I felt that there were too many silences or outright negative comments. I didn't feel like the tide was moving the right way.
That said, I also know that we should do well out of the ex-UKIP vote and in Wakefield that has particular potency given Creagh's A50 vote and the Leave/Remain split. I'd also say that the true baseline is the 2010 election and not the 2015 one, as last time we only picked a candidate in March and gave Labour two years headstart. This time, as in 2010, we fought on roughly level terms.
However, it's clear that policing, pensions, social care and other 'spend other people's money' issues have cut through and are switching votes. Hence my prediction.
However, just as one should never tweet when drunk or exhausted (unless SeanT, perhaps), so one probably shouldn't post in such a condition and almost certainly shouldn't bet. (For clarification, I'm not drunk, by the way - I've barely had time for a drink since the campaign began, bar a friend's mini stag do a couple of weekends ago).
But trying to view it with a clear head, I still don't like it. We're ignoring the polls because - ? Because until not long ago they didn't accord with experience. But tonight, for me, they did. The polls were right at the local elections a month ago. A Con lead of 4-5 would produce a knife-edge Con majority, if that. And I'm not convinced the lead will be that big.
And with that, I'm signing off until tomorrow. All the best, and if I can't wish you all good luck politically, at least I hope I can wish a profitable day. If it's as bad a result as it might be, you'll need the money.
Just read the last two hours' worth of posts in about 10 minutes. The David Herdson conundrum was probably the highlight of it all.
41, 40, [attack], 45, 43,42,43,44,42,46
and Labour
40,39, [attack],34, 36, 38, 38,34, 35, 34
Could be coincidence, but it looks like a clearish pattern.
Exactly Dave
Dave+1
Dave -1
The Conservatives are not going to pick up that many former UKIP voters in southern England.
Has been a nice appetizer for tomorrow night's main course...
I feel a lot of JC supporters will be fired up, but also feel a lot of trad Labour supporters just won't be able to hold their nose enough to vote for him, Theresa just isn't enough of a Tory toff or City spiv that lukewarmLabour supporters will drag themselves to the polling booth to try and stop her.
In which case, the fundamentals are really economic and we really are addicted to state spending, and believe we can have our cake and eat it.
It might have been better for Osborne to cut deeper, faster, in the 2010-2015 parliament, and get it largely over with in 5 years, rather than chipping away at it for 10 years+.
I think that Tory WWC votes sometims have a mirage-like element - they seem to be coming over for the first time ever, but on the day habit reasserts itself.
That is the issue with this election, voters are moving about for once.
Con 51.7
LD 30.5
Lab 11.5
UKIP 5.5
IND 0.9
In 2015 it was
Con 52.7 (+1.0)
UKIP 17.5 (+12.0)
Lab 13.5 (+2.0)
LD 10.6 (-19.9)
Green 5.8 (+5.8)
The LDs are not trying as hard as usual (probably over in Bath), UKIP are not standing this time, Labour are well organised, so I'm betting a higher proportion of UKIP in this seat go Labour than in most other areas, pushing them into second.
I am a little short of brandy for tommorow, only a little Metaxa left. Does it go with popcorn?
Apologies if I just ruined it...
I do wonder though if the Electoral Commission is overstepping itself. Surely the Conservatives must be sailing very close to the wind. So has the EC's interpretation of electoral law been challenged in court? Ultimately it is the judges not the EC that decides, and the law can't be changed retrospectively. And, if the Supreme Court eventually found against the Conservatives, would we not face a rerun of the general election in every marginal constituency up and down the country?
I'd have to take back about 500 posts about her superior electoral appeal...
The polling is still pretty solid for the Tories at 43/44%.
I am ready
I am also calm unlike some on here :-)
Eric Pickles seriously off message on how bad May is at negotiation.
If you take the averages of all pollsters pre and post attack they are very similar.
stooshie < rammy/stairheid rammy < stramash
row < serious row/row with the neighbours < bout of fisticuffs may be involved.
Con maj 1.15 from 1.25
Nom 9.6 from 6.6