Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Since the end of October only one survey from a pollster other

2

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    So Blair did better than Corbyn.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.
    As a matter of interest who is this shining star in the conservative party that is going to take the party to new election heights

    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs and members think is irrelevant until then, May is staying having won the confidence vote at the end of last year.

    May is also more popular with Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it is. Be even worse with May as leader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    That’s probably why the Tories lost seats in Wales last election. Having CCHQ impose candidates who had no local support and against local wishes and failing to produce a manifesto on devolved matter for Wales unlike Labour or the Scottish conservatives were not exactly great decisions. Still, I am sure your efforts were appreciated by someone who values patronage more than votes.
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union and pro immigration where it satisfies the economic needs of the country. I reject the ultras brexiteers just as much as I reject the hard left of Corbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your protestations of being pro business seriously. It’s not pro business to simply be a Remain ultra and implying that Bamford, Dyson, Odey etc are all anti business because they support Brexit is asinine. All Tories are pro union by definition. Simply saying you are means nothing.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    So Blair did better than Corbyn.
    Not in 2005.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited January 2019
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    So Blair did better than Corbyn.
    Yes, in vote share terms the '97 election is the high point for Labour. Too see a repeat of that I think we would need to see something like Black Wednesday type event for the Tories again before the next election, although you wouldn't have quite the timeframe that the Tories would have been in power by the next election to represent that aspect of '97.

    Basically give Corbyn Blair's conditions and considering how well he did last time he should reach the few extra percent fairly easily.

    Edit @justin124 yeah spotted that a minute or two later. Also I did wonder about UK or GB vote share, I'd go with the GB as I assume we didn't stand in N.Ireland then either.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    It is worth pointing out that Labour and Tory support prior to the early 1970s was artificially high simply because there were far fewer other candidates in the field. Hundreds of constituencies were straight fights between the two big parties. That changed in February 1974.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Nigelb said:
    Wow. Thanks very much for the link. Well worth a read.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,972

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    True but no Labour leader has seen the Tories get as high a voteshare against them as Corbyn saw the Tories get in 2017 since Foot in 1983 either
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,046
    edited January 2019
    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    Assuming that the mean of the various companies represents the reality! Since they all use different methodologies (hence the error is systemic as well as random) there is no reason why averaging out different approaches should get closer to the 'true' position.

    Self evidently, if one model or approach is 'accurate' then averaging it with the results of inaccurate methods takes you further away from reality.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,690
    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,560
    Mr. Rentool, maybe. Both leaders are less than liked. And heretics are more hateful than heathens.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    justin124 said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    So Blair did better than Corbyn.
    Not in 2005.
    Can't recall Corbyn's third term.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,690
    Totally off topic, I've started a 'year set' of bird species visiting our garden. 14 so far. It would have been 15 if the long-tailed tit in next door's garden had ventured across the wall.

    Since moving here in September we've had 23 species.

    No winter migrants yet. Hopefully the impending Brexit won't put them off.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.

    I think it is at least partly a result of binary choices such as Brexit. The main parties have traditionally been big tents containing a broad range of views on many things loosely held together by loyalty to the leader and the "official" view of the moment. When faced with binary choices on matters of identity this internal unity collapses resulting in weak leadership (since people are unwilling to follow) and disillusionment.

    We need to get back to worrying about fuzzier issues where it is easier to build a viable consensus. Hopefully at some point in 2019 we will achieve this.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,249
    The Lib Dems on an unlikely 12% at BMG must be another "house effect" and one which casts doubt on their figures overall.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,046

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    That’s probably why the Tories lost seats in Wales last election. Having CCHQ impose candidates who had no local support and against local wishes and failing to produce a manifesto on devolved matter for Wales unlike Labour or the Scottish conservatives were not exactly great decisions. Still, I am sure your efforts were appreciated by someone who values patronage more than votes.
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union and pro immigration where it satisfies the economic needs of the country. I reject the ultras brexiteers just as much as I reject the hard left of Corbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your protestations of being pro business seriously. It’s not pro business to simply be a Remain ultra and implying that Bamford, Dyson, Odey etc are all anti business because they support Brexit is asinine. All Tories are pro union by definition. Simply saying you are means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    Assuming that the mean of the various companies represents the reality! Since they all use different methodologies (hence the error is systemic as well as random) there is no reason why averaging out different approaches should get closer to the 'true' position.

    Self evidently, if one model or approach is 'accurate' then averaging it with the results of inaccurate methods takes you further away from reality.
    Quite, but in the absence of knowledge of which model is accurate, the average is the best estimate of reality. It won't be accurate but it is the best estimate available.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,046

    eek said:

    eek said:


    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance

    Big_G is 100% right. The party is much wider than kipper central ConHome.

    Anyone who confuses ConHome with the Party is a joke.
    I don’t confuse them but their polls are restricted to party members. You have to send them your party membership card to be included.

    You apparently are the one who is confused between those who comment on the site and party members.

    If we assume ConHome is an echo chamber that many Tory members don't visit - any poll is merely a reflection of those members that are interested in ConHome's viewpoint.
    I am ostensibly a Conservative, not a member and I haven't looked at Con Home for years, so confusing Con Home with Conservative members or voters is a mistake
    Which was my point. a ConHome poll (if it is restricted to confirmed party members only as seems to be the case) is merely a poll of the subset of Conservative Members who also visit the ConHome site - hence any result there may or may not reflect the whole Tory electorate and equally may not accurately reflect the average readership of the ConHome site.
    I have completed their polls for years and you self certify you are a member and provide your e mail address. Anyone could fill in their poll by simply ticking the box asking if they are a member
    The two of you need to wise up; it's a survey, NOT a POLL
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645
    A Happy New Year to all PBers
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    Updating the EMA of polls with the five latest polls, I get Con 39.0%, Lab 38.3% and LD 8.3%.

    Using Electoral Calculus, this gives
    Con 300
    Lab 272
    LD 16
    SNP 40
    PC 3
    Green 1
    NI 18

    Tories are 25 short of an overall majority. Lab can form a minority government with support from other parties (excl DUP).

    The picture has hardly changed over the last month or two.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    Totally off topic, I've started a 'year set' of bird species visiting our garden. 14 so far. It would have been 15 if the long-tailed tit in next door's garden had ventured across the wall.

    Since moving here in September we've had 23 species.

    No winter migrants yet. Hopefully the impending Brexit won't put them off.

    I am no twitcher but 14 different species in your garden in a single day?? Have you been holding out on us and really occupy a castle? Did this include your ornamental peacocks?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    .
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union and pro immigration where it satisfies the economic needs of the country. I reject the ultras brexiteers just as much as I reject the hard left of Corbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your protestations of being pro business seriously. It’s not pro business to simply be a Remain ultra and implying that Bamford, Dyson, Odey etc are all anti business because they support Brexit is asinine. All Tories are pro union by definition. Simply saying you are means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    True but no Labour leader has seen the Tories get as high a voteshare against them as Corbyn saw the Tories get in 2017 since Foot in 1983 either
    In 1987 the Tories polled 42.4% on a UK basis - and 43.3% on a GB basis.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,046

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    ink
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    .
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union and pro immigration where it satisfies the economic needs of the country. I reject the ultras brexiteers just as much as I reject the hard left of Corbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your protestations of being pro business seriously. It’s not pro business to simply be a Remain ultra and implying that Bamford, Dyson, Odey etc are all anti business because they support Brexit is asinine. All Tories are pro union by definition. Simply saying you are means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
    History will be your judge. There were plenty of warnings that Brexit would put strains upon the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,972
    edited January 2019

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    .
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union orbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    ink
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    .
    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union and pro immigration where it satisfies the economic needs of the country. I reject the ultras brexiteers just as much as I reject the hard left of Corbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your protestations of being pro business seriously. It’s not pro business to simply be a Remain ultra and implying that Bamford, Dyson, Odey etc are all anti business because they support Brexit is asinine. All Tories are pro union by definition. Simply saying you are means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
    History will be your judge. There were plenty of warnings that Brexit would put strains upon the UK.
    Be still my quaking heart.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,972
    edited January 2019
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    Are we seeing the ceiling for a JC led labour?
    If they can't break the 40% barrier now, when will they? We know that it is historically possible, as the Tory Blair did so and I expect Kinnock / Smith also?

    TMay polls higher than other tories. When was the last time a party was in power and a member who was not PM had the highest poll rating? Did Brown poll above PM Blair? Any Tory above PM Thatcher or even PM Major?

    Possibly D Milliband over PM Brown?

    If we are talking about polling then Labour have been over the 40% barrier previously under Corbyn. I think our best spell was just after GE17 but we've gone above it since I'm pretty sure just not to any consistent degree across polls since the aftermath of the election.

    Kinnock got 30.8% in 92, about 9% less than Corbyn. Blair went over it twice and under it once, I think the one over was very close to Corbyn's result. I think basically only Blair beat Corbyn's score (without going back decades) and only once with a bit to spare and once by a little.

    In terms of vote share Corbyn actually stands out as a Labour leader as a very good performer electorally.
    Kinnock got 34% in 1992.

    Attlee got over 40% in 1945, 1950, 1951 and 1955, Gaitskill got over 40% in 1959 and Wilson got over 40% in 1964 and 1966 and 1970.

    Ìn my defence I looked at wikipedia and wrote that out... it says 30.8% on wikipedia for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Spotted my mistake, I just looked quickly and the first percentage it shows are last election scores, 30.8% is the previous election.

    Anyway my mistake aside basically aside from Blair in 2/3 victories and one of those is very close to Corbyn's result no Labour leader has a better vote share than Corbyn without going back to 1970 (if your list is comprehensive)
    True but no Labour leader has seen the Tories get as high a voteshare against them as Corbyn saw the Tories get in 2017 since Foot in 1983 either
    In 1987 the Tories polled 42.4% on a UK basis - and 43.3% on a GB basis.
    In 2017 the Tories polled 42.4% on a UK basis, in 1987 42.2% on a UK basis

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_United_Kingdom_general_election

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,559

    eek said:
    The visual was accompanied by the 'London is open' message in sundry languages.
    As (probably) one of PB's strongest proponents of withdrawal from the EU, I'm not remotely annoyed by a reference to the EU flag, or the message that London is open. What I'm slightly irritated by is the implication that the rest of the country is not.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,560
    Mr. Brooke, and to you :)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
  • Totally off topic, I've started a 'year set' of bird species visiting our garden. 14 so far. It would have been 15 if the long-tailed tit in next door's garden had ventured across the wall.

    Since moving here in September we've had 23 species.

    No winter migrants yet. Hopefully the impending Brexit won't put them off.

    That's a great idea. Far better I think (if you have the time) as a measure of populations than the RSPB Birdwatch which seems unnecessarily restrictive in terms of time
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    .
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union orbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me means nothing.
    Anyone can say they are 'pro' something; the proof of the pudding comes from the priority it is given. Is someone really 'pro-union' if they give Brexit a higher priority even if it puts the union at risk?
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
    Well Brexit itself does not threaten the Union.provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland
    Ah yes, those ever so reliable polls. How much easier life would be for you if we dispensed with actual campaigns and elections and relied upon polls rather than actual votes.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,559
    TOPPING said:

    Happy New Year all btw.

    Same to you, and everyone here. May 2019 be a year of health, happiness and prosperity for all posters and their loved ones.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    Norm said:

    The Lib Dems on an unlikely 12% at BMG must be another "house effect" and one which casts doubt on their figures overall.

    Using 14 data points over the last year, it appears that BMG over estimates the LD by an average of 1.0%. Because of the MOE, the range on individual data points is from +3.2% to -1.3% with an average of +1.0%.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,114
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    Is there a place where one can inspect when companies have announced methodological changes?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,559
    HYUFD said:



    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland

    That's a fantasy. The UK is plenty strong enough to disengage fully with the mechanisms of the EU and remain intact. It has withstood far worse in its time. And if it isn't, there's no point in trying to hold it together with blu tack.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
    Even if you measured a poll against an actual result, it wouldn't be a true comparison (unless it was an exit poll) as the poll would have taken place days before the result and voting intentions might have changed in the meantime. You could also only use one data point and it will have a large MOE.

    All you can do is calculate a "best estimate" using multiple data points which won't be the reality but is the best available in the absence of any other information.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098


    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    Is there a place where one can inspect when companies have announced methodological changes?
    Not that I know of. It would be a very useful resource. I rely on some expert on here (TSE?) flagging up a change of methodology.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
    Even if you measured a poll against an actual result, it wouldn't be a true comparison (unless it was an exit poll) as the poll would have taken place days before the result and voting intentions might have changed in the meantime. You could also only use one data point and it will have a large MOE.

    All you can do is calculate a "best estimate" using multiple data points which won't be the reality but is the best available in the absence of any other information.
    But then the results in your samples are also taken over different periods (on the whole, there will be some overlap) so the same argument applies there. I think going beyond the point that Yougov tends to favour the Tories somewhat and Survation Labour to a lesser extent is difficult and, dare I say it, not particularly reliable.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:
    Wow. Thanks very much for the link. Well worth a read.
    Happy to provide some non Brexit material for your convalescence.
    It does make me wonder if Amazon retail will find it difficult to maintain their dominance over the next few years.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited January 2019
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
    Even if you measured a poll against an actual result, it wouldn't be a true comparison (unless it was an exit poll) as the poll would have taken place days before the result and voting intentions might have changed in the meantime. You could also only use one data point and it will have a large MOE.

    All you can do is calculate a "best estimate" using multiple data points which won't be the reality but is the best available in the absence of any other information.
    But then the results in your samples are also taken over different periods (on the whole, there will be some overlap) so the same argument applies there. I think going beyond the point that Yougov tends to favour the Tories somewhat and Survation Labour to a lesser extent is difficult and, dare I say it, not particularly reliable.
    I guess it is using the assumption that the polling companies are somewhat equal and all capable of fault (and being correct) so the most likely result, assuming polling companies are actually moderately good at figuring out voting intentions then the likely vote shares would be within the range of polls (+MOE) and most likely in the shortest range of all of them or basically the centre point.

    It will likely not be there but anything else is likely to be a worse guess without further information.



  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
    Even if you measured a poll against an actual result, it wouldn't be a true comparison (unless it was an exit poll) as the poll would have taken place days before the result and voting intentions might have changed in the meantime. You could also only use one data point and it will have a large MOE.

    All you can do is calculate a "best estimate" using multiple data points which won't be the reality but is the best available in the absence of any other information.
    But then the results in your samples are also taken over different periods (on the whole, there will be some overlap) so the same argument applies there. I think going beyond the point that Yougov tends to favour the Tories somewhat and Survation Labour to a lesser extent is difficult and, dare I say it, not particularly reliable.
    As the current "best estimate" is based on an exponential moving average, you are right that is somewhat "smeared" over time but it is the best estimate available. What else could you use? I agree it probably doesn't justify quoting the effect to one decimal point. It is intended as a broad but quantified conclusion in the absence of anything else except for simply guessing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    Hmm... I found alcohol free beers pretty unpleasant on the whole. Brewdog's Nanny State is probably the best (I think it is technically 1%) but most have a very chemical taste. If there is a drinkable alcohol free wine I have yet to find it and would welcome any recommendations.

    I am not going tee total or anything but I certainly need to cut back on fatty red meats and other delights.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:
    Wow. Thanks very much for the link. Well worth a read.
    Happy to provide some non Brexit material for your convalescence.
    It does make me wonder if Amazon retail will find it difficult to maintain their dominance over the next few years.
    That's what I thought too. As David says, it is well worth a read and made me distrust Amazon even more.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    My calculation on YouGov is based on 48 data points between September 2017 and September 2018 when I don't think they changed their methodology.
    So what are you measuring against? Surely the only safe time to measure house effects is when we have a large scale election and we can identify their error against an actual result. Simply saying how far they are from the norm assumes that the norm has some validity (I think, I fully appreciate I am discussing this with someone much more knowledgeable about statistics than I am).
    Even if you measured a poll against an actual result, it wouldn't be a true comparison (unless it was an exit poll) as the poll would have taken place days before the result and voting intentions might have changed in the meantime. You could also only use one data point and it will have a large MOE.

    All you can do is calculate a "best estimate" using multiple data points which won't be the reality but is the best available in the absence of any other information.
    But then the results in your samples are also taken over different periods (on the whole, there will be some overlap) so the same argument applies there. I think going beyond the point that Yougov tends to favour the Tories somewhat and Survation Labour to a lesser extent is difficult and, dare I say it, not particularly reliable.
    I guess it is using the assumption that the polling companies are somewhat equal and all capable of fault (and being correct) so the most likely result, assuming polling companies are actually moderately good at figuring out voting intentions then the likely vote shares would be within the range of polls (+MOE) and most likely in the shortest range of all of them or basically the centre point.

    It will likely not be there but anything else is likely to be a worse guess without further information.



    Quite.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:
    Wow. Thanks very much for the link. Well worth a read.
    Happy to provide some non Brexit material for your convalescence.
    It does make me wonder if Amazon retail will find it difficult to maintain their dominance over the next few years.
    Makes me wonder when the American Anti-trust lawyers are going to wake up and smell the coffee. Amazon's dominance is in danger of making Standard Oil look like some sort of Moma and Papa outfit.

    I think one of my new year resolutions (apart from less red wine and roast lamb (sob)) is not to buy anything from Amazon. In fairness, they won't miss my custom much.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,216
    edited January 2019

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    DavidL said:

    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.

    I think it is at least partly a result of binary choices such as Brexit. The main parties have traditionally been big tents containing a broad range of views on many things loosely held together by loyalty to the leader and the "official" view of the moment. When faced with binary choices on matters of identity this internal unity collapses resulting in weak leadership (since people are unwilling to follow) and disillusionment.

    We need to get back to worrying about fuzzier issues where it is easier to build a viable consensus. Hopefully at some point in 2019 we will achieve this.
    Unlikely if we Brexit. Under May’s deal we’ll be arguing for the next couple of years at least on what happens after the transition period.

    And either no deal, or revoke are going to see continued conflict.
    Sorry.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,972
    edited January 2019

    HYUFD said:



    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland

    That's a fantasy. The UK is plenty strong enough to disengage fully with the mechanisms of the EU and remain intact. It has withstood far worse in its time. And if it isn't, there's no point in trying to hold it together with blu tack.
    I am sorry but No Dealers no full well the Union only stays because of the consent of all its components, if they insist on dragging Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland not only out of the EU but out of the Single Market and Customs Union too without even a transition period or trade deal with the EU, Sturgeon will inevitably call indyref2 with a good chance of winning it and if a hard border emerges in Ireland a majority would emerge for a United Ireland.

    The fact most English and Welsh polls show even voters there do not want No Deal shows how fanatical extremist No Dealers are. The Union can be broken up, the economy hit by a severe recession neither matter as long as Brexit is purer than pure
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited January 2019
    I think she prefers the alcohol free wine, though she doesn't drink much beer anyway. I don't even like alcoholic wine so I never really got around to discussing the best ones!

    I cut down red meat myself a while ago, just to be healthier and I find I can get by without it fine. Chicken and Fish are more than enough with red meat maybe once a week as a treat. I think it just takes a little bit of time to adopt a new diet and settle into it and personally I felt better for it.

    Edit: Although I don't want to sound like I am making light of it obviously sucks to be forced to do it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.

    I think it is at least partly a result of binary choices such as Brexit. The main parties have traditionally been big tents containing a broad range of views on many things loosely held together by loyalty to the leader and the "official" view of the moment. When faced with binary choices on matters of identity this internal unity collapses resulting in weak leadership (since people are unwilling to follow) and disillusionment.

    We need to get back to worrying about fuzzier issues where it is easier to build a viable consensus. Hopefully at some point in 2019 we will achieve this.
    Unlikely if we Brexit. Under May’s deal we’ll be arguing for the next couple of years at least on what happens after the transition period.

    And either no deal, or revoke are going to see continued conflict.
    Sorry.

    Spoilsport. Its supposed to be later in January before all our good intentions at the change of the year fall away.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,459

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,316
    Barnesian said:

    Updating the EMA of polls with the five latest polls, I get Con 39.0%, Lab 38.3% and LD 8.3%.

    Using Electoral Calculus, this gives
    Con 300
    Lab 272
    LD 16
    SNP 40
    PC 3
    Green 1
    NI 18

    Tories are 25 short of an overall majority. Lab can form a minority government with support from other parties (excl DUP).

    The picture has hardly changed over the last month or two.

    What is the UKIP number in those updated polls? I still hold to the view that once we have an election, UKIP will be a busted flush (it won't have the money to lose a swathe of deposits) and so the Tories will probably net off maybe another dozen seats as a result.

    It would also depend on what the question was being asked in that election. If it were May asking for approval to get her deal sanctioned by the voters, so that we can just put Brexit to bed and move on, I suspect she would get a higher level approval from the country to do that than the polls currently suggest.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland

    That's a fantasy. The UK is plenty strong enough to disengage fully with the mechanisms of the EU and remain intact. It has withstood far worse in its time. And if it isn't, there's no point in trying to hold it together with blu tack.
    I am sorry but No Dealers no full well the Union only stays because of the consent of all its components, if they insist on dragging Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland not only out of the EU but out of the Single Market and Customs Union too without even a transition period or trade deal with the EU, Sturgeon will inevitably call indyref2 with a good chance of winning it and if a hard border emerges in Ireland a majority would emerge for a United Ireland.

    The fact most English and Welsh polls show even voters there do not want No Deal shows how fanatical extremist No Dealers are. The Union can be broken up, the economy hit by a severe recession neither matter as long as Brexit is purer than pure
    I really don't see no deal breaking up the UK. If anything it would tie the UK closer together as our internal market would become relatively more important. Only NI really has a viable alternative.

    This does not make no deal a good thing of course. It would be a completely unnecessary and unpleasant disruption to our economy which we can avoid at modest cost. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for our relationship with the EU to evolve whichever way we choose without it. Let's hope May's deal gets an easier ride this year than we all seem to expect.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    Awesome!

    Yeah not a drinker myself but it does kill my sleep the occasional time I do it but my Mum who is much more of a drinker said how much better her sleep is now she has cut down and how great she feels in the morning when she wakes up. I think it is something you can handle (to an extent) when you are in your teens and twenties but starts to become more of an issue after that. Although I feel like it always killed me, never built up my tolerance.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
    Lol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.

    I think it is at least partly a result of binary choices such as Brexit. The main parties have traditionally been big tents containing a broad range of views on many things loosely held together by loyalty to the leader and the "official" view of the moment. When faced with binary choices on matters of identity this internal unity collapses resulting in weak leadership (since people are unwilling to follow) and disillusionment.

    We need to get back to worrying about fuzzier issues where it is easier to build a viable consensus. Hopefully at some point in 2019 we will achieve this.
    Unlikely if we Brexit. Under May’s deal we’ll be arguing for the next couple of years at least on what happens after the transition period.

    And either no deal, or revoke are going to see continued conflict.
    Sorry.

    Spoilsport. Its supposed to be later in January before all our good intentions at the change of the year fall away.
    I share ydoethur’s view on new year’s resolutions.
    :smile:

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
    I am not teetotal, but getting drunk disrupts my sleep pattern. A glass or two no later than about 7pm (wine with dinner, etc) is OK, and no coffee after 8pm unless it is a very dark roast. Green tea is fine at any time.

    As with many things, moderation is the key.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    I think she prefers the alcohol free wine, though she doesn't drink much beer anyway. I don't even like alcoholic wine so I never really got around to discussing the best ones!

    I cut down red meat myself a while ago, just to be healthier and I find I can get by without it fine. Chicken and Fish are more than enough with red meat maybe once a week as a treat. I think it just takes a little bit of time to adopt a new diet and settle into it and personally I felt better for it.

    Edit: Although I don't want to sound like I am making light of it obviously sucks to be forced to do it.

    Some of my good friends went pescetarian for moral reasons. They considered that the carbon footprint of red meat was too high to justify despite enjoying it. I found that thought provoking and they are now claiming health benefits that they did not anticipate either.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,316

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    The down-side of being teetotal is that you have "DESIGNATED DRIVER" tattooed on your forehead. And so I was still ferrying drunken folk home at 2am....

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
    I am not teetotal, but getting drunk disrupts my sleep pattern. A glass or two no later than about 7pm (wine with dinner, etc) is OK, and no coffee after 8pm unless it is a very dark roast. Green tea is fine at any time.

    As with many things, moderation is the key.
    I've always believed that the only thing to be done in moderation is moderation itself. But maybe its time for me to learn some new tricks.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,826
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    You're not in sales, are you?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    You're not in sales, are you?
    God no.
    Just the voice of experience in needing distraction from the alcohol/chocolate/insert bad dietary ingredient of choice cravings.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,316
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
    I am not teetotal, but getting drunk disrupts my sleep pattern. A glass or two no later than about 7pm (wine with dinner, etc) is OK, and no coffee after 8pm unless it is a very dark roast. Green tea is fine at any time.

    As with many things, moderation is the key.
    I've always believed that the only thing to be done in moderation is moderation itself.
    You're not Oscar Wilde are you?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    edited January 2019

    Barnesian said:

    Updating the EMA of polls with the five latest polls, I get Con 39.0%, Lab 38.3% and LD 8.3%.

    Using Electoral Calculus, this gives
    Con 300
    Lab 272
    LD 16
    SNP 40
    PC 3
    Green 1
    NI 18

    Tories are 25 short of an overall majority. Lab can form a minority government with support from other parties (excl DUP).

    The picture has hardly changed over the last month or two.

    What is the UKIP number in those updated polls? I still hold to the view that once we have an election, UKIP will be a busted flush (it won't have the money to lose a swathe of deposits) and so the Tories will probably net off maybe another dozen seats as a result.

    It would also depend on what the question was being asked in that election. If it were May asking for approval to get her deal sanctioned by the voters, so that we can just put Brexit to bed and move on, I suspect she would get a higher level approval from the country to do that than the polls currently suggest.
    UKIP is at 5.1%. Obviously they won't get that (I don't think) because they won't stand in very many constituencies. How the 5% splits between Con, Lab and NV I don't know. You're probably right that it will favour the Tories . I also think you're right that it would give the Tories a net extra dozen seats leaving them a tantalising 15 short of an overall majority.

    The polls may shift dramatically over the next few weeks as May and Corbyn have to make some difficult and controversial decisions.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,024

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    Dry January starts today!

    Happy new year Mike and all the PB team, may 2019 be a good year for you! :+1:
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason than I find I can sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before and the quality of sleep is far better.
    As a teetotaler I wish I had that quality of sleep. Perhaps I should actually start drinking.
    I am not teetotal, but getting drunk disrupts my sleep pattern. A glass or two no later than about 7pm (wine with dinner, etc) is OK, and no coffee after 8pm unless it is a very dark roast. Green tea is fine at any time.

    As with many things, moderation is the key.
    I've always believed that the only thing to be done in moderation is moderation itself. But maybe its time for me to learn some new tricks.
    I read the comments below and was not aware that you had been unwell. My apologies for missing it and my best wishes for a speedy recovery.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,098
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    I've been teetotal all this year except for a small slip just after midnight.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,972
    edited January 2019
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland

    That's a fantasy. The UK is plenty strong enough to disengage fully with the mechanisms of the EU and remain intact. It has withstood far worse in its time. And if it isn't, there's no point in trying to hold it together with blu tack.
    I am sorry but No Dealers no full well the Union only stays because of the consent of all its components, if they insist on dragging Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland not only out of the EU but out of the Single Market and Customs Union too without even a transition period or trade deal with the EU, Sturgeon will inevitably call indyref2 with a good chance of winning it and if a hard border emerges in Ireland a majority would emerge for a United Ireland.

    The fact most English and Welsh polls show even voters there do not want No Deal shows how fanatical extremist No Dealers are. The Union can be broken up, the economy hit by a severe recession neither matter as long as Brexit is purer than pure
    I really don't see no deal breaking up the UK. If anything it would tie the UK closer together as our internal market would become relatively more important. Only NI really has a viable alternative.

    This does not make no deal a good thing of course. It would be a completely unnecessary and unpleasant disruption to our economy which we can avoid at modest cost. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for our relationship with the EU to evolve whichever way we choose without it. Let's hope May's deal gets an easier ride this year than we all seem to expect.
    You may not do so, polls in Northern Ireland and Scotland suggest otherwise. Indeed the fact that England and Wales voted Leave despite the economic risk means Scotland could well vote for independence even despite breaking up the UK internal market if they can rejoin the EU internal market. Voters in Northern Ireland, especially Catholics will also never countenance a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

    Along with the economic damage of No Deal to our economy I do agree with you however we must hope May's Deal gets passed
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    @DavidL very sorry to hear about your hospital stay.

    Hope things are on the mend.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    There are also plenty of interesting alternatives. Pure orange juice mixed half 'n' half with a diet lemonade (especially if both are really cold) is very refreshing. Another is to crush ice, pour a tablespoon of Grenadine over it and then top up with apple juice. On a summer's day it is magnificent.

    With coffees, the higher the roast number, the less caffeine survives. People think that a number 2 coffee has less "punch" than a number 6, but that is not the case. The number denotes the roast strength and the more a bean is roasted the less caffeine it has. An "After Dark" coffee is usually a number 5 and a 6 or 7 might as well be caffeine free compared to a Kenyan number 3
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    On topic. If you separate out the polls into a YouGov series and an 'all others' series, however, they both tell the same story - not much has changed since the end of October. Both series show maximum variation of 4%, i.e. +/- 2%, and the average of the first two and last two in both series are identical (+2.5% for YouGov, -0.5% for all others).

    But Mike is right, YouGov do seem to have a marked house effect. Can't tell if that makes them closer to the mark, or further from it.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    There are also plenty of interesting alternatives. Pure orange juice mixed half 'n' half with a diet lemonade (especially if both are really cold) is very refreshing. Another is to crush ice, pour a tablespoon of Grenadine over it and then top up with apple juice. On a summer's day it is magnificent.

    With coffees, the higher the roast number, the less caffeine survives. People think that a number 2 coffee has less "punch" than a number 6, but that is not the case. The number denotes the roast strength and the more a bean is roasted the less caffeine it has. An "After Dark" coffee is usually a number 5 and a 6 or 7 might as well be caffeine free compared to a Kenyan number 3
    My favorite is orange juice or grapefruit juice mixed 50/50 with tonic water. All ingredients have to be cold, though.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    I've been teetotal all this year except for a small slip just after midnight.

    Mightily impressed! ;)
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    After your late 20s, getting smashed just isn’t worth it any more.

    Still seems to happen though.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,844
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Given historical polling performance the true picture with a GE tommorow could be anything from Lab +4/-4

    None of which would be enough for a Labour overall majority, though the Tories could win a tiny overall majority if they lead Labour by 4%
    Labour's margin for a Lib-Lab victory is probably very narrow. Probably SNP confidence and supply - contingent on a 2nd referendum though...
    SNP confidence and supply but not sure about a second referendum. Instead Sturgeon would just ensure Corbyn committed to the Single Market and Customs Union BINO Brexit the SNP would demand as the price of its support.
    rubbish, you are deluded
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,319
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    Yes, alcohol helps get a person off to sleep, but often there is rebound wakefulness in the small hours, so the net effect is disturbed sleep.

    I have grown a liking for Becks Blue (also only 34 KCal per bottle) and Nanny State from Brewdog. Hits the spot like an ordinary cold beer, but easier on the liver.

    Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,560
    Dr. Foxy, yeah, I'd heard that before.

    I don't drink much at all, but as an insomniac who's recently slept in (only just, but still) that'd be a good trade off for me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    Yes, alcohol helps get a person off to sleep, but often there is rebound wakefulness in the small hours, so the net effect is disturbed sleep.

    I have grown a liking for Becks Blue (also only 34 KCal per bottle) and Nanny State from Brewdog. Hits the spot like an ordinary cold beer, but easier on the liver.

    Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
    I’m not ill - unless you mean David ?

    (I periodically cut out alcohol, as I have no desire to give it up, but recognised regular drinking isn’t great for your health in the long run.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,621
    MTimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    There are also plenty of interesting alternatives. Pure orange juice mixed half 'n' half with a diet lemonade (especially if both are really cold) is very refreshing. Another is to crush ice, pour a tablespoon of Grenadine over it and then top up with apple juice. On a summer's day it is magnificent.

    With coffees, the higher the roast number, the less caffeine survives. People think that a number 2 coffee has less "punch" than a number 6, but that is not the case. The number denotes the roast strength and the more a bean is roasted the less caffeine it has. An "After Dark" coffee is usually a number 5 and a 6 or 7 might as well be caffeine free compared to a Kenyan number 3
    My favorite is orange juice or grapefruit juice mixed 50/50 with tonic water. All ingredients have to be cold, though.
    Fresh orange, and soda water, with a slice of lime.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,319
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    I calculate that the "house" effect of YouGov is a 1.1% bias to the Tories (over Labour), for ICM it is a 0.7% bias to the Tories and for Survation it is a 1.4% bias to Labour.

    The problem with that methodology and indeed "house effects" is that the companies try to correct their errors themselves by changes that might or might not work after each election making comparisons more difficult.
    Mr L

    sorry to hear you were in hospital, wishing you a speedy recovery and a prosperous new year
    Thanks very much. I am just going to have to learn to take things easier and take slightly less wine. It could be worse.
    My Mum wanted to cut down her drinking so picked up some non alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks, obviously it isn't the same but you can trick yourself to an extent and I think it helped her a bit. Best of luck with it.
    I went teetotal at the start of October for no other reason that I find I could sleep better. I've had just once relapse - drinking a glass of expensive wine that we bought in France during the summer. I think the benefits of being teetotal far outweigh the pleasure of drinking. I sleep 6+ hours a night no compared with about half of that before.
    Interesting. Disturbed sleep is definitely one of my issues.
    Cutting out alcohol definitely makes a difference. The first week is the toughest... and cultivating an interest in interesting teas might help.

    Yes, alcohol helps get a person off to sleep, but often there is rebound wakefulness in the small hours, so the net effect is disturbed sleep.

    I have grown a liking for Becks Blue (also only 34 KCal per bottle) and Nanny State from Brewdog. Hits the spot like an ordinary cold beer, but easier on the liver.

    Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
    I’m not ill - unless you mean David ?

    (I periodically cut out alcohol, as I have no desire to give it up, but recognised regular drinking isn’t great for your health in the long run.)
    I am not teetotal, and indeed enjoy a beer or a glass of wine, and indeed on hogmanay a nice single malt. I do find that a second glass doesn't add to the pleasure, so usually stick to one, and have several alcohol free days per week, not least when on call or having an early start the next day.

    And yes, I do mean @DavidL :)
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,785
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    So far today we've had red-on-red and blue-on-blue 'discussions' here on PB.

    Strange political world we're living in these days.

    I think it is at least partly a result of binary choices such as Brexit. The main parties have traditionally been big tents containing a broad range of views on many things loosely held together by loyalty to the leader and the "official" view of the moment. When faced with binary choices on matters of identity this internal unity collapses resulting in weak leadership (since people are unwilling to follow) and disillusionment.

    We need to get back to worrying about fuzzier issues where it is easier to build a viable consensus. Hopefully at some point in 2019 we will achieve this.
    Unlikely if we Brexit. Under May’s deal we’ll be arguing for the next couple of years at least on what happens after the transition period.

    And either no deal, or revoke are going to see continued conflict.
    Sorry.

    Spoilsport. Its supposed to be later in January before all our good intentions at the change of the year fall away.
    I share ydoethur’s view on new year’s resolutions.
    :smile:

    I shall be keeping mine for at least the month of January. My plan is to not drink, and to not get into arguments (here or elsewhere), for at least a month. While I like the occasional drink, I suspect the former may be an easier pleasure to give up than the latter. But I figured if I can't give up drinking and arguing for at least one month, what hope is there?

    On that subject, I absolutely can't stand the taste of non alcoholic lager and the like. I had some while lunching with a recovering alcoholic (a former colleague) earlier this year and couldn't believe the foulness. It's like cocaine - nobody does it for the way it smells. It's like homeopathic beer or something, the watered down memory of a beer. All of the bad taste with none of the intoxicating goodness. It makes me want an honest to god pint.

    I've done dry January many times before and think orange juice and lemonade is good, though I don't touch the diet version. Partly because I think those sweeteners are worse for you than the sugar and partly because the sugar rush neatly cancels out the desire to drink, for me at least.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,728
    edited January 2019
    I recently bought a bottle of flavoured water (Seedlip) for £30-odd as I realised that it was too easy to drink far too much of my preferred tipple (Sipsmith).
  • Foxy said:

    I am not teetotal, and indeed enjoy a beer or a glass of wine, and indeed on hogmanay a nice single malt. I do find that a second glass doesn't add to the pleasure, so usually stick to one, and have several alcohol free days per week, not least when on call or having an early start the next day.

    And yes, I do mean @DavidL :)

    My work has been both a benefit and a curse. The huge benefit is that for perhaps 95% of the year I am not allowed to drink as I am either on call or on taxi duty for kids. A strict personal no drink drive policy means my supping time is extremely limited. That suits me as I absolutely love good alcohol and it means that I get to drink very sparingly but from high quality sources. It always amuses me when I do medicals and the doctors ask how much I drink and then are incredulous when I say 1-2 units a week at most.

    The curse is the largely sedentary work and the extremely long hours (regularly doing 16 to 18 hours a day for 25 - 28 days a month) so exercise and diet are both issues for me. Something I am now actively working on after my health scares.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,844

    A Happy New Year to all PBers

    Happy New Year Alan
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.

    Theresa who?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,459

    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.

    Theresa who?
    The interim PM.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,474

    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.

    It was the opening salvo in the post-Brexit culture war that is going to enrich the nation.

    Anyway, bien joué SK.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,844
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year everyone. Good Health and happiness to all.

    It’s

    I n.


    You don’t know Conservative Party members well if you think
    Given May cannot now be challenged again until December 2019 under Tory Party rules what Tory MPs

    May is also moh Tory voters as a whole
    The party will struggle to find enough supporters to canvass and campaign as it iseader.
    You are becoming rather comical in your desire to see TM overthrown. Your reference to ConHome says it all about your wider knowledge of my party
    Wider knowledge - very funny. I’ll leave you to your ignorance
    You may find that past conservative Secretary States for Wales and Ministers for Wales would find your comments somewhat strange in view of my direct input into their various election campaigns
    .
    I was not active in the last election but I was in the 70, 80, 90 and 2010. I am content that I have nothing to prove on my conservative credentials lasting nearly 60 years.

    However, my conservative credentials are pro business, pro the union orbyn
    This is the most anti business Conservative Gov in my lifetime so you’ll forgive me means nothing.
    Whether or not is puts the Union at risk is highly subjective. It was, after all, a United Kingdom referendum not 4 separate referenda. All for one and one for all - and all that. It’s those who don’t believe in the union who are rejecting Brexit.
    Well Brexit itself does not necessarily threaten the Union provided a Deal is done.

    However polling in Northern Ireland shows most voters would back a United Ireland if No Deal but the Union if Remain won an EUref2 or a Deal is confirmed with the EU. Similarly some polls in Scotland see Yes get over 50% if No Deal.

    No Deal could well see the UK break up leaving just England and Wales remaining, the latter having both voted Leave unlike Remain voting Scotland and Northern Ireland
    We agree for once, the sooner the better.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,844
    TOPPING said:

    I recently bought a bottle of flavoured water (Seedlip) for £30-odd as I realised that it was too easy to drink far too much of my preferred tipple (Sipsmith).

    what a waste
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,444

    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.

    https://twitter.com/juliahb1/status/1080042774060138496?s=21
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,844

    Happy New Year all. I must congratulate the Mayor of London on getting so much bang for his buck last night. His New Year message is getting talked about more than Theresa May’s.

    Even if his message was utter bollox
This discussion has been closed.