Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East
The GE17 result from Lewisham East where there's to be a by-election. Looks like a LAB hold on reduced majority on low turnout pic.twitter.com/spDRfIkIyg
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Repmain => Remain in title
EDIT: and
"That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"
are you sure?
LD vote can only go up from those levels but I can't see them going from lost deposit to actually winning in a year.
The referendum wasn't on 23rd of May 2016 it was 23rd of June.
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Thus there's a direct correlation between length and him not being worth listening to.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.
The sub-header is : "Different opinions are one thing, but Peterson is unworthy of an invitation"
It's quite clear that the article is a criticism of the decision to invite him, and therefore obviously of those who made that decision.
That said, I'm still doubtful that Brexit is *that* big a driver of votes and there is a lot of positive support for Corbyn, particularly in London. Without those votes, and without tactical Tory/Leave votes, are there enough others left over? Only on very differential turnouts - and most elections don't have disparities of that scale.
Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?
The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.
They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)
The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.
They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)
At least the people commenting appear sensible... mostly.
I would actually welcome the opportunity to watch red ken try and explain his views under proper challenge.
But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)
I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
you mean the guys who have falsified all their performance data and are causing thousands of premature deaths in this country ?
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
Con 14584
Lab 9174
Lib Dem 7797
3.4% swing to the Tories since GE2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/27/highereducation.studentpoliticseducation
The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.
There is no majority in parliament or the country for anything which disrupts cross-border trade with our neighbours, and in the case of Northern Ireland we have a political and moral obligation to ensure it does not happen. These practical realities will determine where we end up far more than anyone's notions about protecting the 'cause of Brexit'.
Not sure how Sandy did?