Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The good news for TMay’s successor is that her party’s are due

SystemSystem Posts: 11,708
edited August 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The good news for TMay’s successor is that her party’s are due to exceed expectations next time

One of the great things about monitoring election betting is that it gives you a good indication of what expectations were at a particular time and these can be interesting to look back at.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    Fooled by randomness.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rcs1000 said:

    Fooled by randomness.

    Creative ambiguity...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    rcs1000 said:

    Fooled by randomness.

    By which I mean to say, the human mind seeks out patterns in sets of data. There are only 120 different ways to order those five data points. And our minds would succeed in finding stories that would explain all 120 orders.

    But, it's probably just faces in the clouds.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fooled by randomness.

    By which I mean to say, the human mind seeks out patterns in sets of data. There are only 120 different ways to order those five data points. And our minds would succeed in finding stories that would explain all 120 orders.

    But, it's probably just faces in the clouds.
    +1 Much will depend on who is leader, the state of the opposition, events, event, events - just like most other elections.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited August 2017
    Sorry Mike, with respect - I think you're seeing faces in the clouds.

    I'm not even sure we can predict that the average error is likely to be any different in future elections, let alone use past form to predict the direction of the error next time.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fooled by randomness.

    By which I mean to say, the human mind seeks out patterns in sets of data. There are only 120 different ways to order those five data points. And our minds would succeed in finding stories that would explain all 120 orders.

    But, it's probably just faces in the clouds.
    I understand there are obsessive Dylan fans who go to all his concerts and detect messages in the playlists, and there is a theory that "shuffle" functions on music players are not absolutely random because it is too easy to detect patterns in the truly random.

    Constellations are perhaps the best example of the phenomenon. It is very hard to grasp that Orion looks the way it does purely by chance.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    edited August 2017
    I think you mean Hague 'won' the 1999 not 1979 European elections.

    Hague won 1% more of the vote in 2001 but only 1 extra seat, Howard won 0.7% more of the vote in 2005 by contrast but 33 extra seats because of Labour voters switching to the LDs over Iraq
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,447
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fooled by randomness.

    By which I mean to say, the human mind seeks out patterns in sets of data. There are only 120 different ways to order those five data points. And our minds would succeed in finding stories that would explain all 120 orders.

    But, it's probably just faces in the clouds.
    I understand there are obsessive Dylan fans who go to all his concerts and detect messages in the playlists, and there is a theory that "shuffle" functions on music players are not absolutely random because it is too easy to detect patterns in the truly random.

    Constellations are perhaps the best example of the phenomenon. It is very hard to grasp that Orion looks the way it does purely by chance.
    Computers uses pseudo random number generation, so iirc the shuffle can't be purely random.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,997
    edited August 2017
    FPT, that hideous statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, sculpted by Jack Kershaw. The current owner of the site describes slavery as "a form of social security for black Americans."

    Apparently, the statue glows in the dark.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    I think you mean Hague 'won' the 1999 not 1979 European elections.

    Hague won 1% more of the vote in 2001 but only 1 extra seat, Howard won 0.7% more of the vote in 2005 by contrast but 33 extra seats because of Labour voters switching to the LDs over Iraq

    Thanks for spotting the typo
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    I'll be a bit wary of predicting the next election. The polls have not been stellar the last two times.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    I think you mean Hague 'won' the 1999 not 1979 European elections.

    Hague won 1% more of the vote in 2001 but only 1 extra seat, Howard won 0.7% more of the vote in 2005 by contrast but 33 extra seats because of Labour voters switching to the LDs over Iraq

    Thanks for spotting the typo
    That is OK I remember it well as a great night for Tories at a time when New Labour were otherwise sweeping all before them
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    If the Windies keep up this rate in the second innings, they will be 600 without loss at the end of Monday.
  • Options
    Hope nobody has Day 4 tickets, cos you ain't going to see much cricket.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,447
    rcs1000 said:

    If the Windies keep up this rate in the second innings, they will be 600 without loss at the end of Monday.

    You were saying?
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited August 2017
    I was amused by the Hawking vs Hunt spat. He's cheery-picking data, the monster. As politicians do - it's called politics. And some scientists do too.

    Incidentally a doctor's spokesperson was on sort of claiming there's no significant difference between weekends and weekdays. There's fewer staff on duty at weekends so taken at face value, why have so many on duty on week days then?. A self-defeating argument if ever I've heard one.

    There's less use of expensive analytical machines too at weekends.

    Facts are, I suspect, that it is difficult to show significant effects with so many confounding factors. But we assume more staff are better, a not unreasonable claim, but a subjective one.

    Oh, I forgot to get to the point. OGH obviously cherry-picking data for thread. Naughty.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited August 2017

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Thank you. At last some support. It is not just politicians who are fighting the last war but many pollsters - whose corrections to deal with the GE15 proved to have made their 2017 poll less accurate thus adding to expectations.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Just an aside, but, excepting the first to second column, the margin of error has increased every year. That won't continue forever, of course, but does suggest increased volatility.

    I wonder if a similar bar chart for the Lib Dems, UKIP or SNP would indicate a more stable picture. It seems recently electoral polls have been mostly good for smaller parties, and a bit wonky for the big two.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    I think the assumption is that quite a number who were 14-17 this time will vote for him next time, counterbalanced by a number who voted Conservative and were 80+ dying off.

    It's a lazy assumption, but it may have some impact. Thing is it's most likely to help them in the university seats that fell this time and not in places like Newcastle under Lyme where they need more support.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    It's true we don't know what it was, but 39.9% was still a formidable achievement. It will take something special to increase it massively.

    A more plausible suggestion is that the Conservatives drop votes and Labour holds steady, winning by default.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2017

    Hope nobody has Day 4 tickets, cos you ain't going to see much cricket.

    I don't have tickets but was hoping to go on the day since they aren't sold out. Not sure it'll happen now.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    The Forlorn Hope is gone, now the Last Hope is in.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    It's true we don't know what it was, but 39.9% was still a formidable achievement. It will take something special to increase it massively.

    A more plausible suggestion is that the Conservatives drop votes and Labour holds steady, winning by default.
    We are almost five years away from the next election. We might be in the middle of a horrendous recession then, and the Conservatives and Brexit might get the blame. Or we might be enjoying a boom, with the Conservatives and Brexit getting the credit.

    We might see the Labour Party fracture into two. We might see the LibDems disappear to be replaced by "The Democrats". We may see the oil price revive, and with it the economic case for Scottish independence. We may see war in the East - either in the Baltics, or the Korean peninsular.

    Or we might see the Conservative Party fail to pass a Brexit bill and the government could fall in just 18 months time.

    At this point, it's all just probabilities.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    edited August 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    It's true we don't know what it was, but 39.9% was still a formidable achievement. It will take something special to increase it massively.

    A more plausible suggestion is that the Conservatives drop votes and Labour holds steady, winning by default.
    We are almost five years away from the next election. We might be in the middle of a horrendous recession then, and the Conservatives and Brexit might get the blame. Or we might be enjoying a boom, with the Conservatives and Brexit getting the credit.

    We might see the Labour Party fracture into two. We might see the LibDems disappear to be replaced by "The Democrats". We may see the oil price revive, and with it the economic case for Scottish independence. We may see war in the East - either in the Baltics, or the Korean peninsular.

    Or we might see the Conservative Party fail to pass a Brexit bill and the government could fall in just 18 months time.

    At this point, it's all just probabilities.
    Indeed yes. It is even possible Corbyn might come up with some sensible, realistic, costed policies.

    Admittedly that is about the same probability as TSE ordering a Hawaiin pizza with extra pineapple, but it is a possibility.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    I think the assumption is that quite a number who were 14-17 this time will vote for him next time, counterbalanced by a number who voted Conservative and were 80+ dying off.

    It's a lazy assumption, but it may have some impact. Thing is it's most likely to help them in the university seats that fell this time and not in places like Newcastle under Lyme where they need more support.
    Indeed and it is the market towns and suburbs which provide the Tory marginals Corbyn has to win to get an overall majority. Plus the Tories will have scrapped the dementia tax which turned off so many in the 30 to 50 bracket
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    It's true we don't know what it was, but 39.9% was still a formidable achievement. It will take something special to increase it massively.

    A more plausible suggestion is that the Conservatives drop votes and Labour holds steady, winning by default.
    We are almost five years away from the next election. We might be in the middle of a horrendous recession then, and the Conservatives and Brexit might get the blame. Or we might be enjoying a boom, with the Conservatives and Brexit getting the credit.

    We might see the Labour Party fracture into two. We might see the LibDems disappear to be replaced by "The Democrats". We may see the oil price revive, and with it the economic case for Scottish independence. We may see war in the East - either in the Baltics, or the Korean peninsular.

    Or we might see the Conservative Party fail to pass a Brexit bill and the government could fall in just 18 months time.

    At this point, it's all just probabilities.
    Indeed yes. It is even possible Corbyn might come up with some sensible, realistic, costed policies.

    Admittedly that is about the same probability as TSE ordering a Hawaiin pizza with extra pineapple, but it is a possibility.
    I can see TSE with a Hawaiian pizza. It'd match his dress sense and music taste.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    Seems a stupid time to release it. Wouldn't 6.30pm on Saturday be better?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,149
    ydoethur said:

    Seems a stupid time to release it. Wouldn't 6.30pm on Saturday be better?
    They want the bongs to go with it.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464

    ydoethur said:

    Seems a stupid time to release it. Wouldn't 6.30pm on Saturday be better?
    They want the bongs to go with it.
    If it's true. It's not on their twitter feed.

    Still seems bongkers, if true.

    I'll get my light fawn-coloured summer jacket...
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Peace through violence" is an interesting concept:

    "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    hps://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/898869024359989249

    Seems a stupid time to release it. Wouldn't 6.30pm on Saturday be better?
    If it were me I'd get all meta on this guy's ass and embargo the news of the existence of the embargo. He has just given the mischievous a 12 hour window to try to get their hands on a copy.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    AndyJS said:

    "Peace through violence" is an interesting concept:

    "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

    if you kill everyone, then there will be peace
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    "Peace through violence" is an interesting concept:

    "Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

    Kinda of proving Trump's point for him....
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,030
    @MikeSmithson

    Thank you for the bar chart, which I found interesting. May I ask for the betting figures you used for this graph, and the sources you used to get them?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,304
    Something that may be of passing interest.

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/898892844257214464
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Mr. 1000, they created a desert, and called it peace.
  • Options

    Something that may be of passing interest.

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/898892844257214464


    Isn't it Vince Cable when he was Sec of State in the coalition?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited August 2017

    Mr. 1000, they created a desert, and called it peace.

    @viewcode

    For the record, Tacitus is acceptable.
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    edited August 2017
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    People on the whole are ideologically committed to very little. Supporters of the Iraq war retroactively opposed it after it went so clearly wrong. Everybody's grandad was in the French Resistance and nobody was Vichy. If Brexit does go as badly as people say we'll all remember voting Remain regardless.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to power. Labour could further squeeze the LDs and Greens in target seats. They could recruit more former kippers who want a protectionist workers Brexit. They could motivate more non voters to vote or demotivate existing Tory voters to not turn out. They could sweep up the Scottish seats as the SNP fade further. PB Tories seem very complacent about being resurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    People on the whole are ideologically committed to very little. Supporters of the Iraq war retroactively opposed it after it went so clearly wrong. Everybody's grandad was in the French Resistance and nobody was Vichy. If Brexit does go as badly as people say we'll all remember voting Remain regardless.
    Unless the economy enters a severe depression most Leavers will not change their mind provided free movement is ended and immigration brought more under control
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,030
    Charles said:

    Mr. 1000, they created a desert, and called it peace.

    @viewcode

    For the record, Tacitus is acceptable.
    Thank you. How are we with Terry Pratchett?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    edited August 2017

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to power. Labour could further squeeze the LDs and Greens in target seats. They could recruit more former kippers who want a protectionist workers Brexit. They could motivate more non voters to vote or demotivate existing Tory voters to not turn out. They could sweep up the Scottish seats as the SNP fade further. PB Tories seem very complacent about being resurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    The LDs got 7% and UKIP and the Greens about 1%, there are very few of them left to squeeze and if Labour gains an SNP seat that makes no difference to the Tory chances of an overall majority. So Corbyn has to win 2017 Tory voters to get a majority next time
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,866

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to power. Labour could further squeeze the LDs and Greens in target seats. They could recruit more former kippers who want a protectionist workers Brexit. They could motivate more non voters to vote or demotivate existing Tory voters to not turn out. They could sweep up the Scottish seats as the SNP fade further. PB Tories seem very complacent about being resurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    People on the whole are ideologically committed to very little. Supporters of the Iraq war retroactively opposed it after it went so clearly wrong. Everybody's grandad was in the French Resistance and nobody was Vichy. If Brexit does go as badly as people say we'll all remember voting Remain regardless.
    And vice versa, of course.
  • Options
    West Indies what an embarrassment.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to esurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.
    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,728

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to power. Labour could further squeeze the LDs and Greens in target seats. They could recruit more former kippers who want a protectionist workers Brexit. They could motivate more non voters to vote or demotivate existing Tory voters to not turn out. They could sweep up the Scottish seats as the SNP fade further. PB Tories seem very complacent about being resurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    Could a factor be that the polling companies overcompensate each time for factors that made their predictions incorrect? People betting base their actions on these polls and so we get the zig zag effect shown above.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,866
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    People on the whole are ideologically committed to very little. Supporters of the Iraq war retroactively opposed it after it went so clearly wrong. Everybody's grandad was in the French Resistance and nobody was Vichy. If Brexit does go as badly as people say we'll all remember voting Remain regardless.
    And vice versa, of course.
    If people start 'remembering they voted Remain' in sufficient numbers we'll be re-joining for sure.

    More likely is that there will never be consensus on whether Brexit has been a good or a bad thing.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2017
    @HYUFD

    Not nessicarily. Labour could take SCon seats by squeezing the SNP, and there is plenty of potential to have anti Tory tactical voting in England benefiting both Lab and LD. Kippers may well dislike the Tory deal and want to kick the Tories for the betrayal, while similtaneously Con Remain voters may not be willing to turn out to vote for Brexit, but instead vote LD. Surely as someone defeated by an LD this very week you can see that the threat of further defeat is real?

    I am untroubled by Tory complacency, but I am surprised that you are so confident.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    How long will West Indies be able to hold off Bangladesh in terms of Test match rankings?
  • Options
    WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    We interpreted the polling evidence for the years, weeks, days before the election and most of us got it very wrong. There's no reason to trust our interpretation of what it means for the next election god knows when.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,866
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    ... and wasting breath on the distractions of foxhunting and grammar schools; and failing to turn up to the debates. Apart from that though...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote s.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to power. Labour could further squeeze the LDs and Greens in target seats. They could recruit more nters bet on polls...
    The LDs got 7% and UKIP and the Greens about 1%, there are very few of them left to squeeze and if Labour gains an SNP seat that makes no difference to the Tory chances of an overall majority. So Corbyn has to win 2017 Tory voters to get a majority next time
    Not nessicarily. Labour could take SCon seats by squeezing the SNP, and there is plenty of potential to have anti Tory tactical voting in England benefiting both Lab and LD. Kippers may well dislike the Tory deal and want to kick the Tories for the betrayal, while similtaneously Con Remain voters may not be willing to turn out to vote for Brexit, but instead vote LD. Surely as someone defeated by an LD this very week you can see that the threat of further defeat is real?

    I am untroubled by Tory complacency, but I am surprised that you are.
    Most Tory seats in Scotland are rural with negligible Labour presence, what anti Tory tactical voting will take place at the next general election that did not in 2017? Provided the Tories elect a committed Leaver like Boris or Mogg they will keep ex Kippers on board. Any 2015 Tory Remainers who dislike Brexit so much to change their vote will almost all have voted Labour or LD in 2017 anyway.

    I actually got a 3% higher Tory voteshare in my ward this week than the Tory candidate did in 2016 (in neither election did a UKIP candidate stand) so I don't think much has changed dramatically since then.

    I am not complacent, what had happened is complacency of some Tories pre 2017 has now been replaced by complacency of some Corbynistas
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    People on the whole are ideologically committed to very little. Supporters of the Iraq war retroactively opposed it after it went so clearly wrong. Everybody's grandad was in the French Resistance and nobody was Vichy. If Brexit does go as badly as people say we'll all remember voting Remain regardless.
    And vice versa, of course.
    If people start 'remembering they voted Remain' in sufficient numbers we'll be re-joining for sure.

    More likely is that there will never be consensus on whether Brexit has been a good or a bad thing.
    Certainly not in our lifetimes. I expect that it will neither be as good as its boosters claim, nor as bad as it could be. It will merely be a bit crap, and be part of the gradual decline of the country and decay of our influence.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    ... and wasting breath on the distractions of foxhunting and grammar schools; and failing to turn up to the debates. Apart from that though...
    It was more than the Tories being crap though (true as that was). Corbyn proved to be a very effective campaigner.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483


    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote

    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.

    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority

    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to esurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...

    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.

    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    The problem the tories have is that by the next election people will think its time to give the other lot a go. They won't take notice of the "fake" news about corbyn, they wont even consirer why brexit is a success or failure. If they don't reinvent themselves I think they are toast, quite rightly. How does this block quote work?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    Mr. 1000, they created a desert, and called it peace.

    @viewcode

    For the record, Tacitus is acceptable.
    Thank you. How are we with Terry Pratchett?
    Only the funny bits
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    ... and wasting breath on the distractions of foxhunting and grammar schools; and failing to turn up to the debates. Apart from that though...
    Cameron backed a free vote on fox hunting, a plurality of voters backed more grammars and a majority of Tory voters did so. Neither issue hit the Tory voteshare like the dementia tax, staunch anti fox hunting or anti grammar voters were almost all Labour or LD voters anyway
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,866
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to esurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.
    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds
    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    edited August 2017
    nichomar said:



    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    'Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote

    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.

    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority

    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to esurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...

    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.

    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    The problem the tories have is that by the next election people will think its time to give the other lot a go. They won't take notice of the "fake" news about corbyn, they wont even consirer why brexit is a success or failure. If they don't reinvent themselves I think they are toast, quite rightly. How does this block quote work?'

    People said the same about Kinnock in 1992 when he also was fighting for one more heave and Labour had lost 3 previous general elections
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    edited August 2017
    How does this block quote work?'

    Not very well. Try to keep one ending for each username.

    People said the same about Kinnock in 1992 when he also was fighting for one more heave and Labour had lost 3 previous general elections.

    Although in fairness Kinnock was starting from much further back in both votes and seats and was facing a new, popular PM.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
    I would have thought 2022 is most likely due to the Tories' weak grasp on power at the moment.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Small data set", "fooled by randomness", "faces in the clouds" yeah yeah. I get the point. But I think you're all being far too dismissive too quickly.

    We all tend to fight the last war. If so, this kind of alternating pattern may indeed be meaningful and expected. We shouldn't benchmark our expectations by our most recent experience. But we do.

    Labour's successful ground campaign in 2017 is likely to mean that punters in 2022 (or whenever) will guess that Labour will again be particularly effective in turning out its vote where it counts. The blogposts and the op-eds will write themselves. I'll probably be writing some of them, to be honest. Please quote this post back to me if and when I do.

    Yes, plus if you failed to vote for Corbyn in 2017 why should you do so in 2019 or 2020 or 2022? He has already maxed out the student, public sector and city vote
    Who knows what the government might do to push more people Labour's way by the next election. If Brexit is the mess some peopke are saying especially... The 2017 vote was neither a ceiling nor a floor, we don't know what it was.
    If you voted Tory in 2017 you were not only very likely to have voted Leave but also to be ideologically committed to seeing Brexit through. Corbyn needs to win 2017 Tory voters to get an overall majority
    Not necessarily. Corbyn could do that, but there are many other routes to esurgent, just months after a Tory election debacle.

    My interpretation of Mike's SPIN barchart is that political bettors are not very good at predicting election results accurately. Better or worse than the polls? I haven't done those sums, but there doesn't seem to be much in it, perhaps because punters bet on polls...
    Agreed re Corbyn's possible routes to power. You could also add: Labour may get some benefit from the current 14-17 year olds replacing a similar cohort of older voters. The influence of the right-wing press will continue to decline as circulation falls. Labour do not need to demotivate Tories from voting; the Conservative party will do that themselves if the next 5 years go badly.
    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds
    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    After Brexit is done in 2019 May will go and her successor will then likely call a general election within a year
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,866
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    ... and wasting breath on the distractions of foxhunting and grammar schools; and failing to turn up to the debates. Apart from that though...
    Cameron backed a free vote on fox hunting, a plurality of voters backed more grammars and a majority of Tory voters did so. Neither issue hit the Tory voteshare like the dementia tax, staunch anti fox hunting or anti grammar voters were almost all Labour or LD voters anyway
    Yes - fair point. Still looked a bit daft to the swing voters though, to give airtime to these, especially a special interest topic like fox-hunting, given how time-consuming people are being told Brexit will be for parliament.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    edited August 2017
    ydoethur said:

    How does this block quote work?'

    Not very well. Try to keep one ending for each username.

    People said the same about Kinnock in 1992 when he also was fighting for one more heave and Labour had lost 3 previous general elections.

    Although in fairness Kinnock was starting from much further back in both votes and seats and was facing a new, popular PM.

    Kinnock also had a far bigger SDP/Liberal vote to squeeze from 1987 in 1992 than Corbyn will have at the next general election from 2017
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    Incredible to see how similar the records of Botham and Broad are. More matches for Broad, but almost the same number of deliveries, same number of runs, same number of wickets, same economy, same strike right and same average.

    But Botham was of course a much better batsman and fielder.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,030
    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    Mr. 1000, they created a desert, and called it peace.

    @viewcode

    For the record, Tacitus is acceptable.
    Thank you. How are we with Terry Pratchett?
    Only the funny bits
    Pause

    So all of them, then....
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    AndyJS said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
    I would have thought 2022 is most likely due to the Tories' weak grasp on power at the moment.
    That makes it more likely not less they will have an early election. If they had a majority of 160 they wouldn't want to throw it away. But a new leader in honeymoon has little to lose and much to gain by calling an election in the aim of getting a majority.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,009
    edited August 2017
    ydoethur said:

    Incredible to see how similar the records of Botham and Broad are. More matches for Broad, but almost the same number of deliveries, same number of runs, same number of wickets, same economy, same strike right and same average.

    But Botham was of course a much better batsman and fielder.

    And was in a worse team and got on the sauce every night!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incredible to see how similar the records of Botham and Broad are. More matches for Broad, but almost the same number of deliveries, same number of runs, same number of wickets, same economy, same strike right and same average.

    But Botham was of course a much better batsman and fielder.

    And was in a worse team and got on the sauce every night!
    Is that a reference to his drinking or a euphemism for his womanising?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
    I would have thought 2022 is most likely due to the Tories' weak grasp on power at the moment.
    That makes it more likely not less they will have an early election. If they had a majority of 160 they wouldn't want to throw it away. But a new leader in honeymoon has little to lose and much to gain by calling an election in the aim of getting a majority.
    Exactly, the new Tory leader will want his own majority, however small, not to have to spend years dependent on the DUP
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    ydoethur said:

    Incredible to see how similar the records of Botham and Broad are. More matches for Broad, but almost the same number of deliveries, same number of runs, same number of wickets, same economy, same strike right and same average.

    But Botham was of course a much better batsman and fielder.

    Broad is about 7 years younger than Botham was when he got to 383, although that's mainly down to the greater volume of cricket being played these days.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The Tories are bound to do better next time because next time Corbyn -who remains a huge liability for Labour will be seen as a potential prime minister unlike in 2017. Corbynistas are completely misinterpreting what happened at this year's general election. The result was not an indication that Corbyn is on his way to Downing Street. It was an indication that people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide.

    Or even more so prevent a Tory government stopping them inheriting their parents houses if they got dementia and needed personal care
    It's bizarre to be so sure of the meaning of an election which virtually nobody got close to predicting right beforehand.
    The polling evidence is there, the big fall in the Tory lead came after the Tory manifesto was published containing the dementia tax. By contrast Cameron got one of his biggest poll bounces after Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million
    The polling evidence can be interpreted however you want to rationalise it. It's reading entrails. People who spend 99% of their time talking about American wrestling on twitter predicted it closer than the polling companies. The manifesto impacted on the shifting moods but it's ludicrous to look at the results and say something like 'people wanted a Tory government but to prevent a hard Brexit Tory landslide'. All we know is that certain percentages stuck their crosses in certain boxes for reasons obscure probably even to themselves.
    The Tory lead at least halved in virtually every poll after the dementia tax plans were published, that was what lost May her majority (along perhaps with ending free school lunches and scrapping the triple lock and means testing winter fuel allowance).
    ... and wasting breath on the distractions of foxhunting and grammar schools; and failing to turn up to the debates. Apart from that though...
    Cameron backed a free vote on fox hunting, a plurality of voters backed more grammars and a majority of Tory voters did so. Neither issue hit the Tory voteshare like the dementia tax, staunch anti fox hunting or anti grammar voters were almost all Labour or LD voters anyway
    Yes - fair point. Still looked a bit daft to the swing voters though, to give airtime to these, especially a special interest topic like fox-hunting, given how time-consuming people are being told Brexit will be for parliament.
    I don't disagree but it was the dementia tax which did the most damage
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
    I would have thought 2022 is most likely due to the Tories' weak grasp on power at the moment.
    That makes it more likely not less they will have an early election. If they had a majority of 160 they wouldn't want to throw it away. But a new leader in honeymoon has little to lose and much to gain by calling an election in the aim of getting a majority.
    Exactly, the new Tory leader will want his own majority, however small, not to have to spend years dependent on the DUP
    I think the main lesson of 2017 is that unplanned elections don't work for the Tories now.

    If there is a new election, and to be honest I suspect a new leader would be happy enough to be in power for at least 9 months, I would expect months and months of softening up. Not a walking holiday and keeping it all a surprise.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Just did my bit for the British economy. I feel like every time we come back to London it's just to shop. The choices in Zurich are completely awful.

    Final wedding of the summer tomorrow as well which is a relief, I think that makes 7 in total.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    MaxPB said:

    Just did my bit for the British economy. I feel like every time we come back to London it's just to shop. The choices in Zurich are completely awful.

    Final wedding of the summer tomorrow as well which is a relief, I think that makes 7 in total.

    Ouch. Only had 1 this summer, and that was expensive enough visiting from Dorset.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited August 2017
    In which time zone..?

    Only Brexiteers could be so worked up about a bell ringing, on the wrong date...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,464
    That didn't take long.

    West Indies have no batsmen, only six players who are not specialist bowlers or fielders.

    Discuss.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,182
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:


    The next general election will likely be in 2019 or 2020 not enough time to see much demographic change from 2017 but provided the Tories keep the dementia tax on the scrap heap they should be able to win back some 30 to 50 year olds

    Interesting, do you really think 2019 or 2020 for the next GE?
    Hard to see May staying beyond Brexit and hard to see her successor not calling an election. 2019 looks a good bet - before any economic turmoil starts to bite.

    Depending on who the new Tory leader is two-thirds or even more of the leaders of the three national parties could be over 70 by then - for the first time since 1955.
    I would have thought 2022 is most likely due to the Tories' weak grasp on power at the moment.
    That makes it more likely not less they will have an early election. If they had a majority of 160 they wouldn't want to throw it away. But a new leader in honeymoon has little to lose and much to gain by calling an election in the aim of getting a majority.
    Exactly, the new Tory leader will want his own majority, however small, not to have to spend years dependent on the DUP
    I think the main lesson of 2017 is that unplanned elections don't work for the Tories now.

    If there is a new election, and to be honest I suspect a new leader would be happy enough to be in power for at least 9 months, I would expect months and months of softening up. Not a walking holiday and keeping it all a surprise.
    Which is why 2020 rather than 2019 may be the best bet
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,298
    edited August 2017
    ydoethur said:

    That didn't take long.

    West Indies have no batsmen, only six players who are not specialist bowlers or fielders.

    Discuss.

    Fucking embarassing...A team made up of lads from the birmingham league could have done better.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,149
    Scott_P said:

    In which time zone..?

    Only Brexiteers could be so worked up about a bell ringing, on the wrong date...
    The best reply on Twitter was "DexEU's midnight runners".
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,298
    edited August 2017
    The only more embarassing sporting performane than the WI, ch5 EFL highlights show!
  • Options
    Its interesting that the 1980s success and now decline in the West Indies cricket team has been mirrored by the 1980s success and now decline in the number of British cricketers of West Indian background.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,009
    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incredible to see how similar the records of Botham and Broad are. More matches for Broad, but almost the same number of deliveries, same number of runs, same number of wickets, same economy, same strike right and same average.

    But Botham was of course a much better batsman and fielder.

    And was in a worse team and got on the sauce every night!
    Is that a reference to his drinking or a euphemism for his womanising?
    I meant drinking!
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just did my bit for the British economy. I feel like every time we come back to London it's just to shop. The choices in Zurich are completely awful.

    Final wedding of the summer tomorrow as well which is a relief, I think that makes 7 in total.

    Ouch. Only had 1 this summer, and that was expensive enough visiting from Dorset.

    Ouch indeed. One was in Durban, which was great. The rest have been lacking.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JamesAALongman: Conflicting reports over an attack at Nimes train station. Worth pointing out a Barcelona attacker is still on the loose - and it's not far
This discussion has been closed.