politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Case Not Proven: The suggestion that there’s been a LAB>CON shift amongst women
With the apparent sharpish shifts that we’ve seen in recent days in the polls to the Conservatives there has, inevitably, been a lot of examination of the detailed data.
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
Disagree. Polls at this stage are not meant to be predictions of the election but an ongoing barometer of the state of public opinion. Clearly public opinion can change as we saw last May June
Because polling has a stellar track record of correctly predicting outcomes of events over the past few years. Or not.
The 55k sample YouGov model was pretty goodg indeed if you weight the final polls from the last election by the sample size then the outcome was not that far off
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
We know of allegations made against Branding Cox and STC a few years ago already. OXFAM clearly the tip of the iceberg here. However plenty of apologists who want to look the other way. You have to wonder why.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
I'm not so sure.
TM's a dead woman walking. It can't go on like this, yet it does. Until it doesn't.
When she's finally ousted, the new PM - who will have won the leadership by offering a radically different prospectus - will need a mandate.
IMO, it's 1/2 they'll be forced into an election within the year.
Mumsnet is probably the election deciding demographic I suspect
Since every vote is worth the same I've never really understood the idea that some types of voters are more likely to swing the result of an election, except for voters in marginal seats.
Actually there is one more recent than the thread header polls, BMG, which seems to have been overlooked - showed Con and Lab back on level pegging, with TM 2 points ahead of JC on best PM. I'm not convinced that anything special is happening at the moment.
Mumsnet is probably the election deciding demographic I suspect
Since every vote is worth the same I've never really understood the idea that some types of voters are more likely to swing the result of an election, except for voters in marginal seats.
One factor might be propensity to change. Floating voters are by definition more worth courting than those whose intention is already fixed.
Actually there is one more recent than the thread header polls, BMG, which seems to have been overlooked - showed Con and Lab back on level pegging, with TM 2 points ahead of JC on best PM. I'm not convinced that anything special is happening at the moment.
Are you comparing it to a previous BMG poll or other polls when you say 'back to level pegging'?
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
We know of allegations made against Branding Cox and STC a few years ago already. OXFAM clearly the tip of the iceberg here. However plenty of apologists who want to look the other way. You have to wonder why.
You have to wonder why it is all over pb the past few days with no apparent political connection. Will there be a backlash against foreign aid, or calls for more direct government action? Will the scandal influence women voters in particular (which is at least on topic for this thread)? Does this diminish the leadership chances of ministers with colourful pasts, or even men in general? Should we back Amber Rudd? What are the political and betting angles?
Because polling has a stellar track record of correctly predicting outcomes of events over the past few years. Or not.
The 55k sample YouGov model was pretty good indeed if you weight the final polls from the last election by the sample size then the outcome was not that far off
But most of the polls we see day-to-day are of 1,000 or 2,000 sample, then often get subsampled to death. They’re also mostly asking a hypothetical question about an election tomorrow, which (hopefully!) isn’t going to happen. There’s probably only the budget for a 55k sample size very close to an actual election.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
I'm not so sure.
TM's a dead woman walking. It can't go on like this, yet it does. Until it doesn't.
When she's finally ousted, the new PM - who will have won the leadership by offering a radically different prospectus - will need a mandate.
IMO, it's 1/2 they'll be forced into an election within the year.
~Evens the next GE before 2020.
Yes, this Government is actually a late work by Samuel Beckett: It can't go on, it'll go on.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
I'm not so sure.
TM's a dead woman walking. It can't go on like this, yet it does. Until it doesn't.
When she's finally ousted, the new PM - who will have won the leadership by offering a radically different prospectus - will need a mandate.
IMO, it's 1/2 they'll be forced into an election within the year.
~Evens the next GE before 2020.
Why will the new PM need a mandate? The opposition usually trot this line out and demand an election when there is a change of PM. Governments usually ignore them. Most PMs taking over in mid-term have not called an early election.
Because polling has a stellar track record of correctly predicting outcomes of events over the past few years. Or not.
The 55k sample YouGov model was pretty good indeed if you weight the final polls from the last election by the sample size then the outcome was not that far off
But most of the polls we see day-to-day are of 1,000 or 2,000 sample, then often get subsampled to death. They’re also mostly asking a hypothetical question about an election tomorrow, which (hopefully!) isn’t going to happen. There’s probably only the budget for a 55k sample size very close to an actual election.
After about 1,300 the payback in terms of accuracy for the cost of polling larger samples is pretty small. Funding a mega-poll only makes sense if the intention is to examine subsamples, as for YouGov's seat model.
On topic, polling is inherently subject to a significant margin of error - analysing subgroups of the electorate in particular polls necessarily more so. You need to see a very strong signal before placing much credence in it.
Yep. And we are years from the next election. And those years look set to be eventful. Perhaps time to look at polling in other countries for a while.
I'm not so sure.
TM's a dead woman walking. It can't go on like this, yet it does. Until it doesn't.
When she's finally ousted, the new PM - who will have won the leadership by offering a radically different prospectus - will need a mandate.
IMO, it's 1/2 they'll be forced into an election within the year.
~Evens the next GE before 2020.
Except there is no reason for the new leader to have offered a "radically different prospectus" -- more dynamism or charisma to appeal to voters, perhaps, or a solid record, but nothing more than bromides on the great issues of the day. The 2017 Conservative manifesto used the phrase "strong and stable" fifteen times. Will the new leader promise weakness and instability? I shan't be taking evens about an election in the next two years.
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
We know of allegations made against Branding Cox and STC a few years ago already. OXFAM clearly the tip of the iceberg here. However plenty of apologists who want to look the other way. You have to wonder why.
I think it's fairly clear. There are plenty (the Daily Mail, for instance), who would conflate questioning how aid is delivered with whether it should be delivered at all. In response others (e.g. Nick P in the previous thread) defensively, and I think mistakenly, insist that it's just a few bad apples rather than a systemic problem.
Those who support aid (as I do) ought to be every bit as concerned with how it is delivered, and its effectiveness, as those who do not.
If hes so bad they want him out now doesn't it beg the question why they permitted him to run the place for years?
True of many leaders, including our own PM, when their time is up.
Yes it is, and though it is part of the game politicians cannot be allowed to get away with it unchallenged - they cannot say someone is terrible if they personally would have attacked anyone making the same point previously, not without being a massive hypocrit.
Mumsnet is probably the election deciding demographic I suspect
Since every vote is worth the same I've never really understood the idea that some types of voters are more likely to swing the result of an election, except for voters in marginal seats.
One factor might be propensity to change. Floating voters are by definition more worth courting than those whose intention is already fixed.
Also, certain demographics might be over-represented in marginal seats.
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
We know of allegations made against Branding Cox and STC a few years ago already. OXFAM clearly the tip of the iceberg here. However plenty of apologists who want to look the other way. You have to wonder why.
I think it's fairly clear. There are plenty (the Daily Mail, for instance), who would conflate questioning how aid is delivered with whether it should be delivered at all. In response others (e.g. Nick P in the previous thread) defensively, and I think mistakenly, insist that it's just a few bad apples rather than a systemic problem.
Those who support aid (as I do) ought to be every bit as concerned with how it is delivered, and its effectiveness, as those who do not.
Seems reasonable. Doing good does not excuse doing bad, and nothing inherently wrong with ensuring that it is the case only the former is occurring. As you say there are reasons for defensiveness, but the principle of systemic review is sound, nay, necessary from time to time.
Because polling has a stellar track record of correctly predicting outcomes of events over the past few years. Or not.
The 55k sample YouGov model was pretty good indeed if you weight the final polls from the last election by the sample size then the outcome was not that far off
But most of the polls we see day-to-day are of 1,000 or 2,000 sample, then often get subsampled to death. They’re also mostly asking a hypothetical question about an election tomorrow, which (hopefully!) isn’t going to happen. There’s probably only the budget for a 55k sample size very close to an actual election.
After about 1,300 the payback in terms of accuracy for the cost of polling larger samples is pretty small. Funding a mega-poll only makes sense if the intention is to examine subsamples, as for YouGov's seat model.
Don’t disagree about sample sizes, but when, as now, opinion is close between two political parties, the vast majority of the polls are within the margin of error. A large sample size poll might actuallly be quite useful to us right now, although I’m not sure why anyone would want to pay for one at the moment.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
If more females are switching to Tory it is likely to do with voter identification. A lot of ageing females probably identify with Teresa` s resilience and if the Tories replace her that might have a negative impact on them I have a little doubt that history will judge May as the worse PM ever however it is risky for Tories to replace her when they are over 40% in the polls
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
I can believe it. Any number of people will believe party x is bad for women, or minorities or whoever, even if top figures come from within such groups. Is it in fact the case now? No idea though.
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur. In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
We know of allegations made against Branding Cox and STC a few years ago already. OXFAM clearly the tip of the iceberg here. However plenty of apologists who want to look the other way. You have to wonder why.
I think it's fairly clear. There are plenty (the Daily Mail, for instance), who would conflate questioning how aid is delivered with whether it should be delivered at all. In response others (e.g. Nick P in the previous thread) defensively, and I think mistakenly, insist that it's just a few bad apples rather than a systemic problem.
Those who support aid (as I do) ought to be every bit as concerned with how it is delivered, and its effectiveness, as those who do not.
I agree. I have a little experience in the sector (in a medical and church context) and have ambivalent feelings about aspects of the sector, but want to see reform not abolition. I note that this is the view of the former head of safeguarding at Oxfam in the Channel 4 new last night. She is now a Labour councillor, so not a natural partner of the Priti Patel's of this world.
The 2001 report on sexual exploitation of West African refugees linked in the Guardian article lists extensive abuse by aid workers, peacekeepers and civilians such as miners, but were locally engaged staff.
Aid organisations get criticised for spending too much on admin, yet sound admin is the core of good internal governance. It is challenging to have good practice in this country. How much harder is it to have it in a country where the authorities are venal, corrupt and abusive themselves? The idea that the Haitian police would have taken effective action in 2011 is delusional.
The Aid industry has long debated these issues and there is an extensive literature. In particular I would recommend as an eye opener "Lords of Poverty" by Graham Hancock, and "White Mans burden" by Easterly.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
I can believe it. Any number of people will believe party x is bad for women, or minorities or whoever, even if top figures come from within such groups. Is it in fact the case now? No idea though.
I'm not saying it is impossible in any circumstances. A party may well have particular policies that attract a lot of one sex and not another, a significant increase in CB for example. But I am really struggling to see what could drive such a differential right now.
Thinking hard the Tories got some bad publicity about the cuts in funding to women's refuges 3-4 weeks ago. I would be astonished if that was still having a significant impact. Anything else?
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Women are more directly affected by austerity. So yes I think it’s possible.
I think Mike, unusually, underestimates Mumsnet. The question of gender identity has become extremely highly charged among those who care about it and Labour have found themselves on the wrong side of Mumsnet opinion on the subject. It occupies the “asylum seeker in £1.2 million house” slot of public debate: something that is highly marginal in reality but that acts as an emblem of what many see as something very wrong with the world.
Elsewhere on Mumsnet right now there’s a vigorous debate about whether a man who persists in showering naked in the men’s communal area of the changing rooms at a local swimming pool should be stopped from doing so when children are present. The consensus seems to be that he’s a deviant, despite that fact that so far as I can tell he is using the facilities exactly as they are designed. Self-identification as a woman needs to be understood against that background.
I don’t think we’re yet seeing an anti-trans swing to the Tories. It is, however, possible that Labour are alienating some potential supporters on this subject.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
On Oxfam: positions of power will attract those who see the possibility of abusing that power. Priests, football coaches, teachers and doctors have all been found to include such people among their number. Aid workers have power too.
Oxfam will inevitably attract such people then. The question therefore is not whether Oxfam has employed such abusers but what it has done to stop them and what actions it has taken after the fact. So far the evidence seems to suggest that Oxfam have taken the matter seriously (as compared with other bodies in a similar position) but not seriously enough and at times have been more concerned about their short term reputation than the long term harm.
The male vote is now generally more pro Tory but it may be some women like the fact there is a woman PM and are concerned about some of the misogyny around some of Corbyn and McDonnell's supporters, including the recent removal by Momentum of the moderate female leader of Haringey council
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
Nah, don't worry. Women can always earn more being felt up by rich men - and any woman serving at events is obviously an escort, and is therefore fair game to be groped or worse.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
If more females are switching to Tory it is likely to do with voter identification. A lot of ageing females probably identify with Teresa` s resilience and if the Tories replace her that might have a negative impact on them I have a little doubt that history will judge May as the worse PM ever however it is risky for Tories to replace her when they are over 40% in the polls
May is certainly better than Eden, Heath, Callaghan and Brown and that is just post-war PMs.
The economy is still doing OK, she is gradually making progress in negotiations with the EU on Brexit while respecting the Leave vote and she has not involved the UK in any disastrous wars
The male vote is now generally more pro Tory but it may be some women like the fact there is a woman PM and are concerned about some of the misogyny around some of Corbyn and McDonnell's supporters, including the recent removal by Momentum of the moderate female leader of Haringey council
I think there's a much bigger difference in voting intention between younger and older women compared to younger and older men. Young women tend to be very anti-Tory but older women are slightly more Tory than older men.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
Not really. I am doubtful that the Tories have increased their lead amongst men as well. I am perplexed that the gender split is reaching such extreme levels but all of these polls show the Tories doing better than I would have expected standing the current media frenzy.
If anybody backed Mr. Herdson's tip on Putin at 5.25 for a 70-80% poll share in next month's election, you can back 80-90% at 6.5 and 90%+ at 31 (both with boost) on Ladbrokes, and lay 70%+ (covering those three bands) at 1.25 on Betfair Exchange, to be all green whatever happens.
Of course, if laying 70-80% directly were possible that'd be easier, but Betfair doesn't have that specific band and the Ladbrokes Exchange doesn't have the market at all (that I can see).
The male vote is now generally more pro Tory but it may be some women like the fact there is a woman PM and are concerned about some of the misogyny around some of Corbyn and McDonnell's supporters, including the recent removal by Momentum of the moderate female leader of Haringey council
I think there's a much bigger difference in voting intention between younger and older women compared to younger and older men. Young women tend to be very anti-Tory but older women are slightly more Tory than older men.
A reference to in all probability the fact that older women are much more likely to be married than younger women or retired while more younger women will be likely to work in the public sector than younger men who will have a higher percentage of private sector workers
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
"Unilever has threatened to withdraw ads from platforms like Google and Facebook if they do not do enough to police extremist and illegal content.
Unilever said consumer trust in social media is now at a new low. "We cannot have an environment where our consumers don't trust what they see online," said Unilever's chief marketing officer Keith Weed."
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
Not really. I am doubtful that the Tories have increased their lead amongst men as well. I am perplexed that the gender split is reaching such extreme levels but all of these polls show the Tories doing better than I would have expected standing the current media frenzy.
The public don't care about Westminster stories. But, I expected the NHS to hurt the Conservatives.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
FWIW there is a similar effect with Trump and also with independence for Scotland at the time of that referendum.
In this case I am wondering whether differential turnout may apply. Younger women say they are more likely to vote than younger men.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
Not really. I am doubtful that the Tories have increased their lead amongst men as well. I am perplexed that the gender split is reaching such extreme levels but all of these polls show the Tories doing better than I would have expected standing the current media frenzy.
The public don't care about Westminster stories. But, I expected the NHS to hurt the Conservatives.
I think the media almost overdid the NHS winter crisis storyline. It got to the point most were thinking that this is not short sighted incompetence but indicative of a much more fundamental problem: how do we cope with an ageing population and ever increasing demand at a time of limited resources? Once the story got to that the pressure on the government lifted. I am not sure if Hunt was good or lucky. Maybe both.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
FWIW there is a similar effect with Trump and also with independence for Scotland at the time of that referendum.
In this case I am wondering whether differential turnout may apply. Younger women say they are more likely to vote than younger men.
Girls are more likely to go to university so it seems reasonable to assume that they're more likely to be engaged in politics and perhaps more likely to turnout.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
Not really. I am doubtful that the Tories have increased their lead amongst men as well. I am perplexed that the gender split is reaching such extreme levels but all of these polls show the Tories doing better than I would have expected standing the current media frenzy.
The public don't care about Westminster stories. But, I expected the NHS to hurt the Conservatives.
It is surely now a given that the NHS will struggle in winter. Unless one needs to use the service directly during the peak period the news stories are merely white noise.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
Nah, don't worry. Women can always earn more being felt up by rich men - and any woman serving at events is obviously an escort, and is therefore fair game to be groped or worse.
At least, according to some on here ...
I would never permit my wife or servants to take any job which involved wearing a shorter than mid calf length skirt.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
"Unilever has threatened to withdraw ads from platforms like Google and Facebook if they do not do enough to police extremist and illegal content.
Unilever said consumer trust in social media is now at a new low. "We cannot have an environment where our consumers don't trust what they see online," said Unilever's chief marketing officer Keith Weed."
Facebook and Youtube both really struggling with their customers at the moment, funnily enough massive companies like Unilever don't want their adverts around dodgy content.
(Remember that the advertisers are their customers, those who use their services are the product).
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
YouGov's gender split in this latest survey totally different from most other polls since GE17.
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
Not really. I am doubtful that the Tories have increased their lead amongst men as well. I am perplexed that the gender split is reaching such extreme levels but all of these polls show the Tories doing better than I would have expected standing the current media frenzy.
The public don't care about Westminster stories. But, I expected the NHS to hurt the Conservatives.
I think the media almost overdid the NHS winter crisis storyline. It got to the point most were thinking that this is not short sighted incompetence but indicative of a much more fundamental problem: how do we cope with an ageing population and ever increasing demand at a time of limited resources? Once the story got to that the pressure on the government lifted. I am not sure if Hunt was good or lucky. Maybe both.
Most voters will know a patient, so I am sceptical the headlines make much difference either way. The underlying issues are already obvious.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
It would be an interesting study to look at the changing demographics of the main party supporters over time. I'm inclined to agree with your point that rural v urban is now probably a bigger indicator than social class, education or job category. Similar issues have I think been studied in the USA.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Without making sweeping generalisations, that kind of makes sense.
In the 1970s, most married women were still housewives. They would have likely been responsible for spending the household budget, and worried about inflation and the overbearing effect of trade unions on their husbands. Meanwhile, for many working-class men, trade unionism and blue-collar heavy industry was still a major part of their identity.
Fast-forward to today, and working women are more concerned with workplace fairness/ equality, affordable childcare, education and the NHS, so are probably more likely to find Corbyn's messages attractive with his past utterances on defence/terrorism either irrelevant or a historical curiosity. Working class men will be more likely to think it says a lot about him.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
Nah, don't worry. Women can always earn more being felt up by rich men - and any woman serving at events is obviously an escort, and is therefore fair game to be groped or worse.
At least, according to some on here ...
I would never permit my wife or servants to take any job which involved wearing a shorter than mid calf length skirt.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
It would be an interesting study to look at the changing demographics of the main party supporters over time. I'm inclined to agree with your point that rural v urban is now probably a bigger indicator than social class, education or job category. Similar issues have I think been studied in the USA.
Same in France and indeed most of the western world, big cities and university towns vote for left liberal parties, rural areas vote for conservative parties and suburbs and small and medium sized towns are the swing areas
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Yes. A few female faces at the top can only do so much*.
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
Nah, don't worry. Women can always earn more being felt up by rich men - and any woman serving at events is obviously an escort, and is therefore fair game to be groped or worse.
At least, according to some on here ...
I would never permit my wife or servants to take any job which involved wearing a shorter than mid calf length skirt.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Without making sweeping generalisations, that kind of makes sense.
In the 1970s, most married women were still housewives. They would have likely been responsible for spending the household budget, and worried about inflation and the overbearing effect of trade unions on their husbands. Meanwhile, for many working-class men, trade unionism and blue-collar heavy industry was still a major part of their identity.
Fast-forward to today, and working women are more concerned with workplace fairness/ equality, affordable childcare, education and the NHS, so are probably more likely to find Corbyn's messages attractive with his past utterances on defence/terrorism either irrelevant or a historical curiosity. Working class men will be more likely to think it says a lot about him.
I love this post. Starts with "without making sweeping generalisations" and then proceeds immediately to make quite big sweeping generalisations.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
It would be an interesting study to look at the changing demographics of the main party supporters over time. I'm inclined to agree with your point that rural v urban is now probably a bigger indicator than social class, education or job category. Similar issues have I think been studied in the USA.
You'd see a huge fall in Conservative support among public sector professionals, since the mid-sixties (so seats like Leeds NE, Birmingham Edgbaston, Hornsey & Wood Green switch from safe Conservative to safe Labour) and a steady rise in support among working class voters in the private sector (so new town constituencies shift from Labour to Conservative).
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
It would be an interesting study to look at the changing demographics of the main party supporters over time. I'm inclined to agree with your point that rural v urban is now probably a bigger indicator than social class, education or job category. Similar issues have I think been studied in the USA.
You'd see a huge fall in Conservative support among public sector professionals, since the mid-sixties (so seats like Leeds NE, Birmingham Edgbaston, Hornsey & Wood Green switch from safe Conservative to safe Labour) and a steady rise in support among working class voters in the private sector (so new town constituencies shift from Labour to Conservative).
I think its most interesting where opposite trends have happened in adjacent constituencies - Sheffield Hallam and Derbyshire NE for example or Gedling and Sherwood.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
I think it is just that we are all influenced by people we meet. Middle class people who live in very Labour areas tend to vote Labour more than elsewhere, and working class people in the south east tend to be more Conservative than the demographic norm. One of those things.
Mr. Recidivist, indeed. Reminds me of social pressure and the effect of others even when they aren't there (not buying a certain shirt because you know your wife won't like it, for example).
Although that does raise an interesting echo chamber question. Does rising social media use entrench political perspectives (compared to the recent past) or lead to higher 'shy' voting, whereby action and stated intentions differ?
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
FWIW there is a similar effect with Trump and also with independence for Scotland at the time of that referendum.
In this case I am wondering whether differential turnout may apply. Younger women say they are more likely to vote than younger men.
Girls are more likely to go to university so it seems reasonable to assume that they're more likely to be engaged in politics and perhaps more likely to turnout.
In am thinking also of women with school age children. That they may be more likely to vote than their partners.
Berlusconi campaigning against populism. How ironic. But there is a lesson here that other people's populism can be more popular than yours to the people you are targeting. Something Boris Johnson might suffer from vis a vis Jacob Rees Mogg.
F1: Azerbaijan rumoured to not want to continue with F1.
Now we just need Monaco to do likewise...
Azerbaijan was a great race last year, loads of overtaking. As was Singapore, in the rain.
Monaco is way too small for the modern F1 cars, but there's no chance of that race ever changing. Qualifying is always great to watch there though, as the grid position is so important. Still upset with Jenson Button for spoiling my No SC bet last year though
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Yes that was definitely true. Being left wing was very blokey back then.
Union membership was certainly a lot higher then, than it is now. Especially so in the private sector.
That provokes an interesting question. With the rise of Corbynism, is union membership going to appreciably increase, or will it continue its long-term decline?
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
I think most of the Corbyn fan club are middle class students and young professionals, rather than the manual workers who traditionally formed their base.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
Corbynism is likely popular among manual workers in Merseyside, and some big urban areas. There seems to be a considerable divide between manual workers in big urban centres, where Labour dominates, and smaller cities and large towns, where the Conservatives are more competitive.
It would be an interesting study to look at the changing demographics of the main party supporters over time. I'm inclined to agree with your point that rural v urban is now probably a bigger indicator than social class, education or job category. Similar issues have I think been studied in the USA.
Mostly you are looking at age (and ethnicity), rather than rural/urban per se. The two are highly correlated.
In the 1970s women were significantly more likely to be Tory supporters than men, to the extent of 10 percentage points IIRC.
Without making sweeping generalisations, that kind of makes sense.
In the 1970s, most married women were still housewives. They would have likely been responsible for spending the household budget, and worried about inflation and the overbearing effect of trade unions on their husbands. Meanwhile, for many working-class men, trade unionism and blue-collar heavy industry was still a major part of their identity.
Fast-forward to today, and working women are more concerned with workplace fairness/ equality, affordable childcare, education and the NHS, so are probably more likely to find Corbyn's messages attractive with his past utterances on defence/terrorism either irrelevant or a historical curiosity. Working class men will be more likely to think it says a lot about him.
Without making sweeping generalisations it all went wrong when women gained the vote.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
One of those jobs that we all think no-one in their right mind would ever want, while remaining humbly grateful to those brave men who do. Hats off to the Dark Blues on this occasion.
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Army and Navy teams get around 30 callouts a year to genuine unexploded bombs, plus no doubt loads of others that are less dangerous.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Don't worry about wages. They're going to take-off very shortly. Mark Carney said so.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/feb/12/metoo-strikes-aid-sector-as-sexual-exploitation-allegations-proliferate
This does not seem entirely surprising to me. As we discussed in the previous thread, the relationship between aid worker and recipient is one of great power imbalance and without proper systems of safeguarding, abuses are highly likely to occur.
In a manner similar to the abuse scandals in schools last century, it seems that the management of many of these organisation preferred not to know.
The reported decision to "recall" Mr Zuma followed marathon talks by senior party officials that continued into the early hours of Tuesday."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43039928
TM's a dead woman walking. It can't go on like this, yet it does. Until it doesn't.
When she's finally ousted, the new PM - who will have won the leadership by offering a radically different prospectus - will need a mandate.
IMO, it's 1/2 they'll be forced into an election within the year.
~Evens the next GE before 2020.
https://twitter.com/far_right_watch/status/962848109494788096
Those who support aid (as I do) ought to be every bit as concerned with how it is delivered, and its effectiveness, as those who do not.
These women have clearly found the charms of Penny Mordaunt, future Prime Minister, impossible to resist.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
A lot of ageing females probably identify with Teresa` s resilience and if the Tories replace her that might have a negative impact on them
I have a little doubt that history will judge May as the worse PM ever however it is risky for Tories to replace her when they are over 40% in the polls
The 2001 report on sexual exploitation of West African refugees linked in the Guardian article lists extensive abuse by aid workers, peacekeepers and civilians such as miners, but were locally engaged staff.
Aid organisations get criticised for spending too much on admin, yet sound admin is the core of good internal governance. It is challenging to have good practice in this country. How much harder is it to have it in a country where the authorities are venal, corrupt and abusive themselves? The idea that the Haitian police would have taken effective action in 2011 is delusional.
The Aid industry has long debated these issues and there is an extensive literature. In particular I would recommend as an eye opener "Lords of Poverty" by Graham Hancock, and "White Mans burden" by Easterly.
Thinking hard the Tories got some bad publicity about the cuts in funding to women's refuges 3-4 weeks ago. I would be astonished if that was still having a significant impact. Anything else?
Women are in lower paid work, and more likely to have frequent use of public services such as schools, NHS and adult social care for themselves and their families. These frame their world view more than Brexit trivia.
*diversity at the top can be very superficial. Female and BME for example, but still rich and privately educated in the main. This is true of all parties and organisations.
I think Mike, unusually, underestimates Mumsnet. The question of gender identity has become extremely highly charged among those who care about it and Labour have found themselves on the wrong side of Mumsnet opinion on the subject. It occupies the “asylum seeker in £1.2 million house” slot of public debate: something that is highly marginal in reality but that acts as an emblem of what many see as something very wrong with the world.
Elsewhere on Mumsnet right now there’s a vigorous debate about whether a man who persists in showering naked in the men’s communal area of the changing rooms at a local swimming pool should be stopped from doing so when children are present. The consensus seems to be that he’s a deviant, despite that fact that so far as I can tell he is using the facilities exactly as they are designed. Self-identification as a woman needs to be understood against that background.
I don’t think we’re yet seeing an anti-trans swing to the Tories. It is, however, possible that Labour are alienating some potential supporters on this subject.
I am very doubtful there has been such a significant change.
Oxfam will inevitably attract such people then. The question therefore is not whether Oxfam has employed such abusers but what it has done to stop them and what actions it has taken after the fact. So far the evidence seems to suggest that Oxfam have taken the matter seriously (as compared with other bodies in a similar position) but not seriously enough and at times have been more concerned about their short term reputation than the long term harm.
At least, according to some on here ...
I think there's an element here of Tory supporters wanting to believe that it is the case.
The economy is still doing OK, she is gradually making progress in negotiations with the EU on Brexit while respecting the Leave vote and she has not involved the UK in any disastrous wars
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election
Of course, if laying 70-80% directly were possible that'd be easier, but Betfair doesn't have that specific band and the Ladbrokes Exchange doesn't have the market at all (that I can see).
(I guess not with him only as leader; as PM he might introduce some more union-friendly policies).
"Unilever has threatened to withdraw ads from platforms like Google and Facebook if they do not do enough to police extremist and illegal content.
Unilever said consumer trust in social media is now at a new low.
"We cannot have an environment where our consumers don't trust what they see online," said Unilever's chief marketing officer Keith Weed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43032241
In this case I am wondering whether differential turnout may apply. Younger women say they are more likely to vote than younger men.
I’m sure Labour in power would seek to repeal most of the last 40 years of union reform legislation though, bringing back wildcat sympathy strikes and show of hands ballots.
(Remember that the advertisers are their customers, those who use their services are the product).
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/13/world/politics-diplomacy-world/italys-ex-premier-berlusconi-campaigns-populism-moves-prevent-5-star-movement-gaining-power/#.WoKsuxCKreQ
In the 1970s, most married women were still housewives. They would have likely been responsible for spending the household budget, and worried about inflation and the overbearing effect of trade unions on their husbands. Meanwhile, for many working-class
men, trade unionism and blue-collar heavy industry was still a major part of their identity.
Fast-forward to today, and working women are more concerned with
workplace fairness/ equality, affordable childcare, education and the NHS,
so are probably more likely to find Corbyn's messages attractive with his past utterances on defence/terrorism either irrelevant or a historical curiosity. Working class men will be more likely to think it says a lot about him.
https://twitter.com/captainmfp/status/963208357241917440
But is that a good thing despite Brexit or a bad thing because of Brexit ?
Although that does raise an interesting echo chamber question. Does rising social media use entrench political perspectives (compared to the recent past) or lead to higher 'shy' voting, whereby action and stated intentions differ?
But whatever, the transgender issue is totally irrelevant to how women vote.
Women are more likely to be influenced by economic issues.
Now we just need Monaco to do likewise...
Monaco is way too small for the modern F1 cars, but there's no chance of that race ever changing. Qualifying is always great to watch there though, as the grid position is so important. Still upset with Jenson Button for spoiling my No SC bet last year though
I very nearly had a 200/1 winner in Azerbaijan, having backed Perez each way for the win. Another needless collision cost me that.
The race was entertaining, but farcical too.
Incidentally, Ladbrokes has a market on fastest car in the first test. My current inclination is to avoid it at all costs.
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Army and Navy teams get around 30 callouts a year to genuine unexploded bombs, plus no doubt loads of others that are less dangerous.