Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
I meant to add the numbers in Scotland basically being unchanged but Labour down to 25 which is largely in line with most Scottish polling where Tories shown as a comfortable second.
The latest Scotland poll of the 4th January has SNP 40% Con 25% Lab 21% Lib Dem 8% confirming labours slide in Scotland
That is the dodgy Bank Holiday poll pointed out a few days back - it is a subset of that national survey. The same applies to the London figures quoted.
As far as I can tell, it is delivery by Amazon i.e. when they subcontract out to some random with a car / van, which you can track via their web interface. They even came down my street and some how managed to not find my house!
When I last had a delivery like that I was surprised to see the driver going round and round my neighbourhood for most of the day, before reaching me at the appointed time.
I can't remember which delivery company it was, but the best system I saw was one where when you logged into the interface you got an anonymized list of the delivery schedule. You couldn't see who or the exact address, but you could see how many more deliveries they had before you, ETA, as well as where the van was at the current time.
I however did think for security of the van driver it seemed potentially a bit risky.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
Quite agree. The toxic legacy of the Coalition is still affecting the LD's too, otherwise they'd be at a much higher percentage.
You can't just blame the coalition, which is actually something that Lib Dems should take some pride in, the current Lib Dem leadership is doing a poor job. They are essentially absent from the debate. It's perplexing that the nearest thing we have to a Remain party is doing so poorly.
The constituency to be galvanised against Brexit is the young and employed, yet the LibDems offer a leader who is tired and effectively retired, as well as tarnished with the compromises of coalition. Things could look very different if one of the potentially dynamic young female leaders were willing to step up to the plate.
I've been saying for some time on PB that £/$ is a screaming buy. Although I have taken some profits as it fluctuates up and down, my position as a whole is underwater. However it remains my view that this is a significant trading opportunity. The saying used to be that you cannot lose money by selling the pound for two dollars; I doubt you can lose money by buying the pound for a dollar and a quarter.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
I meant to add the numbers in Scotland basically being unchanged but Labour down to 25 which is largely in line with most Scottish polling where Tories shown as a comfortable second.
The latest Scotland poll of the 4th January has SNP 40% Con 25% Lab 21% Lib Dem 8% confirming labours slide in Scotland
That is the dodgy Bank Holiday poll pointed out a few days back - it is a subset of that national survey. The same applies to the London figures quoted.
Why is it dodgy.
Pollsters have said there's no difference between a holiday sample and a normal working week sample.
CF the run up to the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections which were preceded by bank holidays, which didn't show any variations during the holiday period to the rest of the polling period.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
This is You Gov you are calling dodgy - you are blind to the irrelevance of labour in Scotland.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
Why don't the two of you have a bet on whether Labour's number will have gone up, down or stayed the same in the next poll?
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
The figures are not markedly out of line with the rest.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
Big move against March Brexit in the last hour - 3.1 out to 4.5 on Betfair.
Why ?
Increasing noises from the govt that Brexit implementation legislation cannot be passed by March 29.
Something they can't just have realised
No. But something they've just started saying.
But David, surely the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension just because we couldn't get our act together in time, no?
A GE or 2nd Ref would be a different matter. It would be unreasonable for them to refuse a short delay for either, but otherwise Brexit Day is Brexit Day, non?
If the UK fails to ratify the deal (and it can't ratify until the legislation is in place), then that has a huge impact on Ireland and the coastal areas of France and the low countries: that's not in the EU's interests (nor is the risk that by refusing an extension, they provoke a backlash making the UK's ability to ratify even less).
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
I meant to add the numbers in Scotland basically being unchanged but Labour down to 25 which is largely in line with most Scottish polling where Tories shown as a comfortable second.
The latest Scotland poll of the 4th January has SNP 40% Con 25% Lab 21% Lib Dem 8% confirming labours slide in Scotland
That is the dodgy Bank Holiday poll pointed out a few days back - it is a subset of that national survey. The same applies to the London figures quoted.
Depends what policy, tighter immigration controls, lower inheritance tax, takingbtge lowest earners out of tax, more money for the NHS etc are all quite popular and Tory policies.
Renationalising the railways and utilities, higher taxes for the rich and scrapping tuition fees though are popular Corbyn policies
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
This is You Gov you are calling dodgy - you are blind to the irrelevance of labour in Scotland.
I am doing no such thing. This is NOT one of Yougov's regular polls at all , but a survey commissioned by a pressure group. To arrange for' it to be conducted over that period was bizarre in the extreme, and polls are normally carried out over 3/4 days - not 2 weeks. A regular Yougov poll should be imminent - and we might hear from Opinium over the weekend.
Big move against March Brexit in the last hour - 3.1 out to 4.5 on Betfair.
Why ?
Increasing noises from the govt that Brexit implementation legislation cannot be passed by March 29.
Something they can't just have realised
No. But something they've just started saying.
But David, surely the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension just because we couldn't get our act together in time, no?
A GE or 2nd Ref would be a different matter. It would be unreasonable for them to refuse a short delay for either, but otherwise Brexit Day is Brexit Day, non?
If the UK fails to ratify the deal (and it can't ratify until the legislation is in place), then that has a huge impact on Ireland and the coastal areas of France and the low countries: that's not in the EU's interests (nor is the risk that by refusing an extension, they provoke a backlash making the UK's ability to ratify even less).
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
What do you think about the possibility of an extension purely to allow more time for No Deal planning?
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
Not a fan of splitting up the team principal role (which happened before, of course). Anyway, sounds like he'll be team boss of the F1 concern, reporting to Zak Brown.
Given what F1's become, going for someone from the world of endurance racing seems a sensible move (probably won't make any difference, though).
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
The figures are not markedly out of line with the rest.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
The figures are not markedly out of line with the rest.
The London subset is very much out of line.
The shift was mainly Labour to LD.
On QT last night an audience member said she normally votes Labour but could not at the moment until Corbyn committed to oppose Brexit and back EUref2 with a Remain option
Big move against March Brexit in the last hour - 3.1 out to 4.5 on Betfair.
Why ?
Increasing noises from the govt that Brexit implementation legislation cannot be passed by March 29.
Something they can't just have realised
No. But something they've just started saying.
But David, surely the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension just because we couldn't get our act together in time, no?
A GE or 2nd Ref would be a different matter. It would be unreasonable for them to refuse a short delay for either, but otherwise Brexit Day is Brexit Day, non?
If the UK fails to ratify the deal (and it can't ratify until the legislation is in place), then that has a huge impact on Ireland and the coastal areas of France and the low countries: that's not in the EU's interests (nor is the risk that by refusing an extension, they provoke a backlash making the UK's ability to ratify even less).
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
What do you think about the possibility of an extension purely to allow more time for No Deal planning?
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
I thought you had some pretty apocalyptic views on what would happen under No Deal. You don't think the Tories would be punished for that?
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
My parents were Tory members, although they never did anything active. I remember a time when, amongst middle class working age people in the shires, the Tories were the default choice and their membership spread across the broad swathe of civil society in southern England, rooted in the support they derived from educated people working in businesses large and small, and the professions.
The Tories now have a declining hollowed out membership comprising predominantly pensioners. Many of those educated professional and business people are horrified with their obsession with Brexit; hence the capital and much of its hinterland is progressively being lost to the party.
It isn't stretching things to suggest that the Tories awate the same fate that befell Labour in Scotland.
The difference in efficiency between the two markets created an hour when selling sterling and hedging the result of the referendum on Betfair would have made up to nine cents of profit per pound – a significant “unleveraged return” that, in theory at least, could have seen astute traders make millions.
Doesn't that assume that a trader would know what the true value of sterling would be in the event of leave having definitely won? At the time when punters on Betfair called it for Leave, you wouldn't know whether or not the value of the pound was fully pricing in a Leave win.
Big move against March Brexit in the last hour - 3.1 out to 4.5 on Betfair.
Why ?
Increasing noises from the govt that Brexit implementation legislation cannot be passed by March 29.
Something they can't just have realised
No. But something they've just started saying.
But David, surely the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension just because we couldn't get our act together in time, no?
A GE or 2nd Ref would be a different matter. It would be unreasonable for them to refuse a short delay for either, but otherwise Brexit Day is Brexit Day, non?
If the UK fails to ratify the deal (and it can't ratify until the legislation is in place), then that has a huge impact on Ireland and the coastal areas of France and the low countries: that's not in the EU's interests (nor is the risk that by refusing an extension, they provoke a backlash making the UK's ability to ratify even less).
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
What do you think about the possibility of an extension purely to allow more time for No Deal planning?
I don't think they'd agree to that.
Though in reality, I don't think the government would put the question in those terms. It would be a case of trying to still get the/an agreement through the Commons, while *simultaneously* preparing for No Deal as a contingency. If No Deal became the stated and intended policy, the government would have a serious survival problem.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
This is You Gov you are calling dodgy - you are blind to the irrelevance of labour in Scotland.
I am doing no such thing. This is NOT one of Yougov's regular polls at all , but a survey commissioned by a pressure group. To arrange for' it to be conducted over that period was bizarre in the extreme, and polls are normally carried out over 3/4 days - not 2 weeks. A regular Yougov poll should be imminent - and we might hear from Opinium over the weekend.
I suspect the longer time range was due to having many more participants than usual.
Though, it does seem like a notable coincidence that the poll produced such large swings so in line with the message of the group that commissioned it. I'd say that unless you have the urge to get some bets on right now, just wait for more polls- it should be clear pretty quickly whether it was a one-off or a new pattern.
Big move against March Brexit in the last hour - 3.1 out to 4.5 on Betfair.
Why ?
Increasing noises from the govt that Brexit implementation legislation cannot be passed by March 29.
Something they can't just have realised
No. But something they've just started saying.
But David, surely the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension just because we couldn't get our act together in time, no?
A GE or 2nd Ref would be a different matter. It would be unreasonable for them to refuse a short delay for either, but otherwise Brexit Day is Brexit Day, non?
If the UK fails to ratify the deal (and it can't ratify until the legislation is in place), then that has a huge impact on Ireland and the coastal areas of France and the low countries: that's not in the EU's interests (nor is the risk that by refusing an extension, they provoke a backlash making the UK's ability to ratify even less).
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
Yes, I see what you mean, David. I agree. In those circumstances, it would be absurd for the EU to enforce a rigid deadline.
Not at all. Any sensible country - and most other democracies - wouldn't countenance making a major change such as this, that will affect its people for a generation - on the back of a single 50%+ vote that spelled out neither the implications or the destination. Requiring a threshold greater than 50%, or asking people to confirm their intentions in a further vote, is how they would do it.
We are victims to Cameron's hubris that he could stroll to victory in a single vote without making any significant effort. The democratic outrage would be to press ahead over the cliff without seeking any further democratic endorsement.
Agree with every word except the first 3. The way to overturn an indefensible referendum is not with another indefensible one. Far better for parliament to reclaim its sovereignty with a clear decision to remain.
The difference in efficiency between the two markets created an hour when selling sterling and hedging the result of the referendum on Betfair would have made up to nine cents of profit per pound – a significant “unleveraged return” that, in theory at least, could have seen astute traders make millions.
Doesn't that assume that a trader would know what the true value of sterling would be in the event of leave having definitely won? At the time when punters on Betfair called it for Leave, you wouldn't know whether or not the value of the pound was fully pricing in a Leave win.
But the pound rose sharply just before the polls closed in expectation of a Remain victory, didn't it?
Only Labour can beat the Tories, so they'll stick with Labour
Not if he enables Brexit. I didn't vote Labour at the last election because my MP, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit (very unusually for a London MP.) Now I live in the Cotswolds and my MP, Laurence Robertson, is an extreme Brexiteer so no problem with my vote next time around.
I'm always surprised quite how Conservative the Tewkesbury constituency is. Yes, it's always going to be prime hunting ground for Shire Tories, but somewhere like Winchcombe ought to be fertile Lib Dem territory. The LDs have been doing moderately well in nearby areas (Cheltenham, Cotswold, West Oxfordshire) but are nowhere to be seen in Tewkesbury.
Also interesting - whose model on here was predicting the same from even earlier in the night?
"Auld and his co-author Prof Oliver Linton used the expected outcomes for each voting area – data that was publicly available prior to the referendum – to create a “forecasting model”.
By adjusting it with each actual result in turn, they say that their model would have predicted the final result from around 1:30am had it been deployed on the night."
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
It was surprising that people were so surprised, given what had happened at every other level of election in Scotland since 2007, from local elections, through Holyrood and up to Europe. Indeed, it's the UK general election of 2010 which stands out as the exception in the post-2007 period, and it was clear before May 2015 that the referendum had finally brought Westminster voting into line with the rest.
The study shows the betting market moved to a Leave result around 3am, by which time Brexit odds had reversed (1 to 10). Yet the foreign exchange market didn’t fully adjust to the reality of Brexit until around 4am. At 4:40am the BBC predicted a Leave victory.
The difference in efficiency between the two markets created an hour when selling sterling and hedging the result of the referendum on Betfair would have made up to nine cents of profit per pound – a significant “unleveraged return” that, in theory at least, could have seen astute traders make millions.
Doesn't that assume that a trader would know what the true value of sterling would be in the event of leave having definitely won? At the time when punters on Betfair called it for Leave, you wouldn't know whether or not the value of the pound was fully pricing in a Leave win.
But the pound rose sharply just before the polls closed in expectation of a Remain victory, didn't it?
I've added in the prior paragraph to show that this was in the early hours. But your point is a good one, selling sterling was the thing to do because it was unlikely to rise much more in the event of a Remain win.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon as something was capable of challenging it. That was far from just Blair's fault, though his policies didn't especially help (note - Blair's more centre-right domestic policies often didn't apply in Scotland), but decades of infighting and complacency left their mark. That's a major reason as to why SLab's finding it so hard to recover: to do so, they need to change a culture, which is always difficult to choose to do. A change of leadership is far from sufficient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
I thought you had some pretty apocalyptic views on what would happen under No Deal. You don't think the Tories would be punished for that?
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
Yougov had it Deal 50% and Remain 50% after preferences, Deltapoll had Deal ahead
Does not sound credible, that, to me. Anyway let's see if the deal can get through parliament first. Still every chance, I think. It looks like the strategy is to first use all the levers of party management to minimize the number of tory rebels and then, having kept the margin of defeat down to something not terminal, to use time pressure and the threat of no deal to scare enough Labour MPs to cave in and get it across the line. However, this Grieve amendment. Has that helped or hindered? Not sure.
The poll referred to here is the suspect Bank Holiday survey conducted over a two week period from 21st December to 4th January. Both the timing and the extended period of the survey make it highly dubious. The same applies to the various subsets referred to - ie London and Scotland.
You mean you do not like the poll findings
No - it means I recognise a dodgy poll when I see one.
This is You Gov you are calling dodgy - you are blind to the irrelevance of labour in Scotland.
I am doing no such thing. This is NOT one of Yougov's regular polls at all , but a survey commissioned by a pressure group. To arrange for' it to be conducted over that period was bizarre in the extreme, and polls are normally carried out over 3/4 days - not 2 weeks. A regular Yougov poll should be imminent - and we might hear from Opinium over the weekend.
I suspect the longer time range was due to having many more participants than usual.
Though, it does seem like a notable coincidence that the poll produced such large swings so in line with the message of the group that commissioned it. I'd say that unless you have the urge to get some bets on right now, just wait for more polls- it should be clear pretty quickly whether it was a one-off or a new pattern.
That certainly makes sense in terms of those who are at all inclined to bet on such things. In no way am I blaming Yougov , but I am suspicious of the motives of those who commissioned this survey at such a time.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
To an extent. However, Scottish Labour was (and remains) a rotten shell that was more of a political machine than a campaigning organisation. It was ripe for collapse as soon cient.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
My parents were Tory members, although they never did anything active. I remember a time when, amongst middle class working age people in the shires, the Tories were the default choice and their membership spread across the broad swathe of civil society in southern England, rooted in the support they derived from educated people working in businesses large and small, and the professions.
The Tories now have a declining hollowed out membership comprising predominantly pensioners. Many of those educated professional and business people are horrified with their obsession with Brexit; hence the capital and much of its hinterland is progressively being lost to the party.
It isn't stretching things to suggest that the Tories awate the same fate that befell Labour in Scotland.
Rubbish. The Tories swept the shires at the last general election and a majority of seats in the shires and in England as a whole voted Leave.
Indeed at GE17 the Tories won a plurality of ABs, C1s and C2s, doing especially well with the latter. Labour only won DEs
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
As far as I can tell, it is delivery by Amazon i.e. when they subcontract out to some random with a car / van, which you can track via their web interface. They even came down my street and some how managed to not find my house!
Amazon Logistics' geocoding (the process of turning an address into a lat/lon co-ordinate) is beyond awful. I have no idea what provider they're using - there's only a handful - but it's consistently worse than any other courier. I'm starting to wonder if they're actually building their own dataset.
Yougov had it Deal 50% and Remain 50% after preferences, Deltapoll had Deal ahead
Does not sound credible, that, to me. Anyway let's see if the deal can get through parliament first. Still every chance, I think. It looks like the strategy is to first use all the levers of party management to minimize the number of tory rebels and then, having kept the margin of defeat down to something not terminal, to use time pressure and the threat of no deal to scare enough Labour MPs to cave in and get it across the line. However, this Grieve amendment. Has that helped or hindered? Not sure.
Even with EUref2 a Leave v Deal then if Leave, Leave with the Deal or No Deal question would likely see Leave with the Deal win
As far as I can tell, it is delivery by Amazon i.e. when they subcontract out to some random with a car / van, which you can track via their web interface. They even came down my street and some how managed to not find my house!
When I last had a delivery like that I was surprised to see the driver going round and round my neighbourhood for most of the day, before reaching me at the appointed time.
I can't remember which delivery company it was, but the best system I saw was one where when you logged into the interface you got an anonymized list of the delivery schedule. You couldn't see who or the exact address, but you could see how many more deliveries they had before you, ETA, as well as where the van was at the current time.
I however did think for security of the van driver it seemed potentially a bit risky.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
If an election is called this year a lot will depend on who has taken over from Theresa May. It's a pretty good guess that if it's Boris JR-M or Davis Labour under Corbyn should win comfortably. With almost anyone else it'll be very difficult.
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
In Italy and France too the main centre right parties have now been overtaken by the populist right
Well after an hour of circling, geographically challenged driver made it, and he was PISSED...I suggest he doesn't think of becoming an Uber driver as a sideline gig!
If an election is called this year a lot will depend on who has taken over from Theresa May. It's a pretty good guess that if it's Boris JR-M or Davis Labour under Corbyn should win comfortably. With almost anyone else it'll be very difficult.
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
Evidence? All the polling evidence is the Tories get their highest voteshare under Boris against Labour and do worst under Hunt or Gove
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
Nothing contradictory, I have always backed the Deal but know if the Tories revoke Brexit that could be fatal for them. However diehard Remainers like you do not care about that
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Only Labour can beat the Tories, so they'll stick with Labour
Not if he enables Brexit. I didn't vote Labour at the last election because my MP, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit (very unusually for a London MP.) Now I live in the Cotswolds and my MP, Laurence Robertson, is an extreme Brexiteer so no problem with my vote next time around.
I'm always surprised quite how Conservative the Tewkesbury constituency is. Yes, it's always going to be prime hunting ground for Shire Tories, but somewhere like Winchcombe ought to be fertile Lib Dem territory. The LDs have been doing moderately well in nearby areas (Cheltenham, Cotswold, West Oxfordshire) but are nowhere to be seen in Tewkesbury.
You obviously know the area well, EC.
Tewkesbury is indeed very Conservative. Winchcombe, where I live, would be much more liberal in every sense. The overwhelming majority of Laurence Robertson's consituency is 'shire conservative'.
Amber Rudd is taking a meat cleaver to the really evil aspects of Universal Credit IDS designed to cause redemptive suffering to claimants. Pity so many factors are now in the way of her suceeding May.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Managing a no deal and showing the hysterical nonsense to be overblown drama would achieve the same thing.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
HY's main problem is that as soon as a thought or poll result pops into his head he posts it up here, without pausing for an instant to think it through.
While continually fluffing the issue may work (for a time) in England, it won't here. Leonard, the SLab leader, given a standard BBC Scotland kid glove interview, was unable to give any coherent answer when asked if Labour would have a position on Brexit in the general election he had just said was necessary to break the Brexit deadlock. If I wasn't invested in the situation, I'd think it tragic that SLab now have a fixed tradition of electing a leader measurably worse than their predecessor. He's worse than Iain Gray ffs!
Yes, Scotland, that is a match within a match when it comes to a general election.
A GE pre-Brexit, IMO, has very different dynamics to one held after the dirty deed is either done or cancelled, and I guess that would apply equally north of the border.
If Labour joined with the SNP to force a Brexit referendum a.k.a. cancellation, I wonder which of the two would trouser the credit with Scottish remainers?
Labour.
Left of centre, pro-eu, anti-independence voters are desperate for Labour to do something as they cannot stomach voting for the LibDems after 2010. The slow, slow coming around to the fact that the SNP are trying to keep them in the EU and Labour are not is a area of great mental turmoil for them. They want to vote against the SNP but are coming to the conclusion they cannot.
If Labour were actually to force a EU referendum they would be richly rewarded at the ballot box in Scotland.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
Labour lost Holyrood just before the end of Blair's tenure. I'm of the view that the Westminster dam didn't break in 2010 because the Scots felt they should show some loyalty to Brown and Darling.
The deal since devolution was vote Labour Nationally to keep out the Tories. In 2010 Scotland voted Labour but still got the Tories. This shattered the unspoken bond. The Lib Dem coalition capitulation in 2010 coupled with Iain Gray's spectacular 2011 performance and you have the start of the re-alignment.
The Scottish Lib Dems who had come out of 8 years of coalition stronger than when they started in 2007 were almost completely wiped out in 2011.
Managing a no deal and showing the hysterical nonsense to be overblown drama would achieve the same thing.
Sure, except that its not possible.
The Spectator had a very good article this week that disagreed. I agreed with its summary that the expected problems are all overblown but the biggest risks will be unexpected problems.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Totally disagree - the party that cancelled it could face a terminal or generational decline.
If an election is called this year a lot will depend on who has taken over from Theresa May. It's a pretty good guess that if it's Boris JR-M or Davis Labour under Corbyn should win comfortably. With almost anyone else it'll be very difficult.
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
Evidence? All the polling evidence is the Tories get their highest voteshare under Boris against Labour and do worst under Hunt or Gove
Is that polling evidence for voteshare amongst the general public or amongst the tory membership? I could believe that the members would love Boris or JRM, I am not sure about ordinary voters.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
While there were other contributory factors, it was the Indy ref every time: the enthusiastic promotion of every Project Fear meme, the smiling Bettertogether photo shoots with Tories, the suggestion implicit & explicit that Yes supporters (many of them Labour voters) were Nazis, the barbed wire & border guards guff from Ed, the Vow, all of it, and over a couple of years. I'm not saying it was easy to forge a Unionist Labour vision (Labour, the Devo Max party might have been a start), but they didn't even try.
Of course J.K. Rowling trying to exculpate Blair & co and put the blame for SLab crapness on Jezza while ignoring the indy ref is...unsurprising.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
It was surprising that people were so surprised, given what had happened at every other level of election in Scotland since 2007, from local elections, through Holyrood and up to Europe. Indeed, it's the UK general election of 2010 which stands out as the exception in the post-2007 period, and it was clear before May 2015 that the referendum had finally brought Westminster voting into line with the rest.
Polling in Scotland is likely to be very volatile. For many years the polls were understating the real level of Tory support simply because so many of them were voting SNP on an anti-Labour tactical basis.That mindset was rather turned on its head by the Referendum campaign with the result that those Tories have returned home and many - though not Big G and others - would now be more inclined to vote Labour in key seats on a pro-Union anti -SNP tactical basis. In contrast, Labour has lost votes in droves to the SNP post Referendum, and what remains unclear is the extent to which it can recover such support in the context of a Westminster election. Unlike many I was not surprised to see Labour make some gains in 2017 - though seven seats was very much at the top end of my expectations. At the end of April 2017 polls in Scotland had Labour as low as 13% yet in early June the party managed to exceed 27%. I suspect there is a large pool of voters who will switch between Labour and SNP - and back again - depending on whether the election relates to Holyrood or Westminster. I believe that the context of the campaign will be important. If the national GB polls indicate the strong possibility of Labour gains and a change of Government , I would expect Scotland to 'join in the party' as it were with many voters switching from SNP back to their Labour roots. On the other hand, if the GB polls point to a clear Tory win , I would expect Labour to find it difficult to make progress.
Left of centre, pro-eu, anti-independence voters are desperate for Labour to do something as they cannot stomach voting for the LibDems after 2010. The slow, slow coming around to the fact that the SNP are trying to keep them in the EU and Labour are not is a area of great mental turmoil for them. They want to vote against the SNP but are coming to the conclusion they cannot.
If Labour were actually to force a EU referendum they would be richly rewarded at the ballot box in Scotland.
Interesting if you are right. Potential gains in Scotland vs risk of going backwards in target Leave seats in England.
Tough decisions. Hope Jeremy is on top of all of this.
Stories like this keep popping up in relation to Brexit and yet, we still have politicians pushing Brexit like it is a good thing. It is increasingly clear that Brexit will be a disaster for the UK.
Even with EUref2 a Leave v Deal then if Leave, Leave with the Deal or No Deal question would likely see Leave with the Deal win
Assume you mean Remain v Leave as Q1, not Leave v Deal. Leave v Deal would be a very exotic formulation!
But, look, of the 2 possibles in practice:
1. Ratify the Treaty, Yes or No. 2. Remain v Deal
May has a good chance in (1), not a snowballs in (2).
I disgree, Remain vs Deal would be another way of saying Remain vs Leave, and although I think Remain would be a strong favourite, I don't think anyone can be confident they know what'll happen.
Only Labour can beat the Tories, so they'll stick with Labour
Not if he enables Brexit. I didn't vote Labour at the last election because my MP, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit (very unusually for a London MP.) Now I live in the Cotswolds and my MP, Laurence Robertson, is an extreme Brexiteer so no problem with my vote next time around.
I'm always surprised quite how Conservative the Tewkesbury constituency is. Yes, it's always going to be prime hunting ground for Shire Tories, but somewhere like Winchcombe ought to be fertile Lib Dem territory. The LDs have been doing moderately well in nearby areas (Cheltenham, Cotswold, West Oxfordshire) but are nowhere to be seen in Tewkesbury.
You obviously know the area well, EC.
Tewkesbury is indeed very Conservative. Winchcombe, where I live, would be much more liberal in every sense. The overwhelming majority of Laurence Robertson's consituency is 'shire conservative'.
They don't count his votes, they weigh them.
Congratulations - it's a lovely place. (I last passed through Winchcombe the other weekend, taking 2-year old Capitano Junior on a trip on the GWSR - his ideal day out.)
Here on the eastern edge of the Cotswolds (West Oxon), things are moving very slightly in a small-L liberal direction - I think largely as a halo effect from Oxford and London - and there seems to be some sign of that in Cotswold District, too. Whether it'll ever amount to anything other than a slightly stronger opposition on the district councils, who knows.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
If an election is called this year a lot will depend on who has taken over from Theresa May. It's a pretty good guess that if it's Boris JR-M or Davis Labour under Corbyn should win comfortably. With almost anyone else it'll be very difficult.
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
Evidence? All the polling evidence is the Tories get their highest voteshare under Boris against Labour and do worst under Hunt or Gove
I think you underestimate the number of people who -in what amounts to a binary choice-will vote to keep Boris out. Libs Greens SNPs you name it. Even Corbyn hating Remainers
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
Nothing contradictory, I have always backed the Deal but know if the Tories revoke Brexit that could be fatal for them. However diehard Remainers like you do not care about that
It might be fatal for them. Equally it could be even more fatal for them if they continue to push through Brexit in any form if it turns out to be very damaging. Brexit is going to be damaging for the Tory brand whatever happens. Labour know that they won't own the aftermath of Brexit, so they are the only ones who will ever get any type of Brexit dividend. Equally most economists, might turn out to be wrong and Brexit might turn out to be GREAT! However, I do seem to remember we were told it was going to be the easiest deal in history ahem!
Not a fan of splitting up the team principal role (which happened before, of course). Anyway, sounds like he'll be team boss of the F1 concern, reporting to Zak Brown.
Given what F1's become, going for someone from the world of endurance racing seems a sensible move (probably won't make any difference, though).
Indeed. A large part of their problem last year was that having two young pay-drivers made it very difficult to develop the car. Good luck to them this year, F1 needs to keep at least a couple of old-fashioned privateer teams around.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
In Italy and France too the main centre right parties have now been overtaken by the populist right
That's true, but there are specific reasons. In Italy, the centre-right has never really recovered from the scandals in the Christian Democrats, and the right-of-centre has been dominated by populists ever since Berlusconi filled the gap in the mid-1990s.
In France, the Republicans have been squashed a little by both Macron in the centre and Le Pen on the populist right but they're still a top-level party with a decent chance of winning the next presidential election, which is more than can be said for the Socialists at the moment.
But as has been remarked many times, the centre has been under attack from populists on both left and right for the last decade. It is of course entirely possible that the same fate could befall the Conservatives but if it does, it will only happen if it's outflanked and outfought on the right.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
The nutters might like to rename their group the League of Empire Loyalists as that apparently sums them up.
Or merge with it; it still seems to exist 65 years later
...and interestingly I had Mr "Brom" suggest the other day that I was lying when I said I used to a Tory activist (presumably because I don't buy the Brexit bollox), so, yes, the two parties do have very similar problems. I would say that the fundamental difference is that while she ain't that great at least TMay is a little closer to the centre and rather more intelligent than Comrade "2Es" Corbyn
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
You can blame the Liberals for starting that.
(Though of course, Benn knew exactly what he was doing with the misleadingly-named Campaign for Labour Party Democracy; Ed Miliband, by contrast, didn't).
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
The nutters might like to rename their group the League of Empire Loyalists as that apparently sums them up.
Or merge with it; it still seems to exist 65 years later
If an election is called this year a lot will depend on who has taken over from Theresa May. It's a pretty good guess that if it's Boris JR-M or Davis Labour under Corbyn should win comfortably. With almost anyone else it'll be very difficult.
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
Evidence? All the polling evidence is the Tories get their highest voteshare under Boris against Labour and do worst under Hunt or Gove
I think you underestimate the number of people who -in what amounts to a binary choice-will vote to keep Boris out. Libs Greens SNPs you name it. Even Corbyn hating Remainers
I think Boris does well because he is more easily recognisable. The fact that he is also easily recognisable as a dishonest cheating narcissistic twat does not seem to stop some people supporting him.
Only Labour can beat the Tories, so they'll stick with Labour
Not if he enables Brexit. I didn't vote Labour at the last election because my MP, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit (very unusually for a London MP.) Now I live in the Cotswolds and my MP, Laurence Robertson, is an extreme Brexiteer so no problem with my vote next time around.
I'm always surprised quite how Conservative the Tewkesbury constituency is. Yes, it's always going to be prime hunting ground for Shire Tories, but somewhere like Winchcombe ought to be fertile Lib Dem territory. The LDs have been doing moderately well in nearby areas (Cheltenham, Cotswold, West Oxfordshire) but are nowhere to be seen in Tewkesbury.
You obviously know the area well, EC.
Tewkesbury is indeed very Conservative. Winchcombe, where I live, would be much more liberal in every sense. The overwhelming majority of Laurence Robertson's consituency is 'shire conservative'.
They don't count his votes, they weigh them.
Congratulations - it's a lovely place. (I last passed through Winchcombe the other weekend, taking 2-year old Capitano Junior on a trip on the GWSR - his ideal day out.)
Here on the eastern edge of the Cotswolds (West Oxon), things are moving very slightly in a small-L liberal direction - I think largely as a halo effect from Oxford and London - and there seems to be some sign of that in Cotswold District, too. Whether it'll ever amount to anything other than a slightly stronger opposition on the district councils, who knows.
Yes, I like Winchcombe a lot. It's a little quirky with more than its share of amiable eccentrics.
I was surprised to find that The Cotswolds featured as a constituency for Referendum purposes, and even more surprised to find it was one of the few non-metropolitan regions to vote Remain. Presumably places like Stroud, Stow, Cirencester and of course Cheltenham outweighed the collective rural idiocy of the Shires.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
Left of centre, pro-eu, anti-independence voters are desperate for Labour to do something as they cannot stomach voting for the LibDems after 2010. The slow, slow coming around to the fact that the SNP are trying to keep them in the EU and Labour are not is a area of great mental turmoil for them. They want to vote against the SNP but are coming to the conclusion they cannot.
If Labour were actually to force a EU referendum they would be richly rewarded at the ballot box in Scotland.
Interesting if you are right. Potential gains in Scotland vs risk of going backwards in target Leave seats in England.
Tough decisions. Hope Jeremy is on top of all of this.
I don't really share that view , because I do not believe that Brexit is anything like as salient an issue -both in Scotland and the rest of GB - as the commentariat would have us believe. Most people are thoroughly sick to death of it , and in a General Election the issue will be overridden by other matters - as happened in 2017.
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
It was surprising that people were so surprised, given what had happened at every other level of election in Scotland since 2007, from local elections, through Holyrood and up to Europe. Indeed, it's the UK general election of 2010 which stands out as the exception in the post-2007 period, and it was clear before May 2015 that the referendum had finally brought Westminster voting into line with the rest.
Polling in Scotland is likely to be very volatile. For many years the polls were understating the real level of Tory support simply because so many of them were voting SNP on an anti-Labour tactical basis.That mindset was rather turned on its head by the Referendum campaign with the result that those Tories have returned home and many - though not Big G and others - would now be more inclined to vote Labour in key seats on a pro-Union anti -SNP tactical basis. In contrast, Labour has lost votes in droves to the SNP post Referendum, and what remains unclear is the extent to which it can recover such support in the context of a Westminster election. Unlike many I was not surprised to see Labour make some gains in 2017 - though seven seats was very much at the top end of my expectations. At the end of April 2017 polls in Scotland had Labour as low as 13% yet in early June the party managed to exceed 27%. I suspect there is a large pool of voters who will switch between Labour and SNP - and back again - depending on whether the election relates to Holyrood or Westminster. I believe that the context of the campaign will be important. If the national GB polls indicate the strong possibility of Labour gains and a change of Government , I would expect Scotland to 'join in the party' as it were with many voters switching from SNP back to their Labour roots. On the other hand, if the GB polls point to a clear Tory win , I would expect Labour to find it difficult to make progress.
What's your time period for this assertion? And which referendum campaign do you mean.
Good point Mr Herdson Maybe the Liberals did it deliberately! Their activist base tends to be more to the left of their MPs, but having met quite a few, I don't think it is that far out of alignment. Having been on a Conservative Constituency Party Executive for quite a few years I can honestly say that you can't say the same for the Tories!
But as has been remarked many times, the centre has been under attack from populists on both left and right for the last decade. It is of course entirely possible that the same fate could befall the Conservatives but if it does, it will only happen if it's outflanked and outfought on the right.
Except that the lesson of Jeremy Corbyn is that centrist parties don't need to be replaced by more radical forces. If the party membership gets a decisive say on leadership decisions, they will tend to pick the individual aligned most closely to their views - i.e. whoever is furthest Left or Right, depending upon the party concerned.
The moment that Conservative MPs fail to keep a populist Right-wing candidate away from the membership ballot they'll win, and that will be it. Our politics is going the way of the American system: even if many, perhaps most, of the people would prefer pragmatism, in terms of the minority whose opinions really count - i.e. the people who howl the loudest and the most frequently - compromise equals heresy.
Even if the Brexit situation is definitively resolved (insofar as it ever can be) one way or the other, that won't change.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
Revoking Brexit would be damaging, sure, for the reason you give. On the other hand it would help win back the economically sound, socially-liberal, business-friendly centre voters many of whom are in despair at the fact that the party seems to have lost its marbles. In the medium term, it would be more recoverable than being held responsible for avoidable catastrophe - especially for a party whose strongest asset is supposed to be economic realism..
The conversation about various options being damaging for the Conservatives current voters, or for Labour's current voters do seem a little reminiscent of an anecdote about aircraft damage in WWII.
They were losing bombers to anti-aircraft fire and to fighters, so they did a statistical analysis on the distribution of damage on the aircraft that did get back. The service brass wanted to add armour plating to the areas that had sustained the most damage on the returning aircraft.
Instead, the analysts pointed out that armouring the areas that hadn't been damaged on the returning aircraft was the way ahead (and indeed saved more aircraft when it was employed). Because the aircraft that had sustained a lot of damage in these areas were the ones that hadn't got back.
While I get the intent to not lose any more of the existing voters, in order to get the ones back that have been lost already, appealling to them is the necessity. For everyone.
I don't really share that view , because I do not believe that Brexit is anything like as salient an issue -both in Scotland and the rest of GB - as the commentariat would have us believe. Most people are thoroughly sick to death of it , and in a General Election the issue will be overridden by other matters - as happened in 2017.
I do agree with that sentiment. I particularly think that if the election is after Brexit, with a deal, I mean, not with a crash out, then it will recede quite quickly as a political issue between the 2 main parties. But if we get a GE before Brexit, I have to think the issue will dominate.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
Comments
I however did think for security of the van driver it seemed potentially a bit risky.
Pollsters have said there's no difference between a holiday sample and a normal working week sample.
CF the run up to the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections which were preceded by bank holidays, which didn't show any variations during the holiday period to the rest of the polling period.
Can you show your workings on why it is dodgy?
I agree that an extension is questionable if Britain hasn't moved forward from here but if the Commons have approved the WA and we're still gringing forward, I think they'd agree to kick the can a little.
Renationalising the railways and utilities, higher taxes for the rich and scrapping tuition fees though are popular Corbyn policies
https://racer.com/2019/01/09/kubicas-impact-already-felt-at-williams/
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
On QT last night an audience member said she normally votes Labour but could not at the moment until Corbyn committed to oppose Brexit and back EUref2 with a Remain option
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/gamblers-predicted-brexit-before-financial-traders-study-finds
The Tories now have a declining hollowed out membership comprising predominantly pensioners. Many of those educated professional and business people are horrified with their obsession with Brexit; hence the capital and much of its hinterland is progressively being lost to the party.
It isn't stretching things to suggest that the Tories awate the same fate that befell Labour in Scotland.
Doesn't that assume that a trader would know what the true value of sterling would be in the event of leave having definitely won? At the time when punters on Betfair called it for Leave, you wouldn't know whether or not the value of the pound was fully pricing in a Leave win.
Though in reality, I don't think the government would put the question in those terms. It would be a case of trying to still get the/an agreement through the Commons, while *simultaneously* preparing for No Deal as a contingency. If No Deal became the stated and intended policy, the government would have a serious survival problem.
Though, it does seem like a notable coincidence that the poll produced such large swings so in line with the message of the group that commissioned it. I'd say that unless you have the urge to get some bets on right now, just wait for more polls- it should be clear pretty quickly whether it was a one-off or a new pattern.
"Auld and his co-author Prof Oliver Linton used the expected outcomes for each voting area – data that was publicly available prior to the referendum – to create a “forecasting model”.
By adjusting it with each actual result in turn, they say that their model would have predicted the final result from around 1:30am had it been deployed on the night."
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
Indeed at GE17 the Tories won a plurality of ABs, C1s and C2s, doing especially well with the latter. Labour only won DEs
If Corbyn is replaced by Starmer or Thornberry Labour must be favourite against any Tory.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
https://twitter.com/sjamcbride/status/1083451905551093761?s=21
Tewkesbury is indeed very Conservative. Winchcombe, where I live, would be much more liberal in every sense. The overwhelming majority of Laurence Robertson's consituency is 'shire conservative'.
They don't count his votes, they weigh them.
Left of centre, pro-eu, anti-independence voters are desperate for Labour to do something as they cannot stomach voting for the LibDems after 2010. The slow, slow coming around to the fact that the SNP are trying to keep them in the EU and Labour are not is a area of great mental turmoil for them. They want to vote against the SNP but are coming to the conclusion they cannot.
If Labour were actually to force a EU referendum they would be richly rewarded at the ballot box in Scotland.
But, look, of the 2 possibles in practice:
1. Ratify the Treaty, Yes or No.
2. Remain v Deal
May has a good chance in (1), not a snowballs in (2).
The Scottish Lib Dems who had come out of 8 years of coalition stronger than when they started in 2007 were almost completely wiped out in 2011.
See Nick Clegg's LDs for details.
Of course J.K. Rowling trying to exculpate Blair & co and put the blame for SLab crapness on Jezza while ignoring the indy ref is...unsurprising.
In contrast, Labour has lost votes in droves to the SNP post Referendum, and what remains unclear is the extent to which it can recover such support in the context of a Westminster election. Unlike many I was not surprised to see Labour make some gains in 2017 - though seven seats was very much at the top end of my expectations. At the end of April 2017 polls in Scotland had Labour as low as 13% yet in early June the party managed to exceed 27%. I suspect there is a large pool of voters who will switch between Labour and SNP - and back again - depending on whether the election relates to Holyrood or Westminster. I believe that the context of the campaign will be important. If the national GB polls indicate the strong possibility of Labour gains and a change of Government , I would expect Scotland to 'join in the party' as it were with many voters switching from SNP back to their Labour roots. On the other hand, if the GB polls point to a clear Tory win , I would expect Labour to find it difficult to make progress.
Tough decisions. Hope Jeremy is on top of all of this.
Here on the eastern edge of the Cotswolds (West Oxon), things are moving very slightly in a small-L liberal direction - I think largely as a halo effect from Oxford and London - and there seems to be some sign of that in Cotswold District, too. Whether it'll ever amount to anything other than a slightly stronger opposition on the district councils, who knows.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
In France, the Republicans have been squashed a little by both Macron in the centre and Le Pen on the populist right but they're still a top-level party with a decent chance of winning the next presidential election, which is more than can be said for the Socialists at the moment.
But as has been remarked many times, the centre has been under attack from populists on both left and right for the last decade. It is of course entirely possible that the same fate could befall the Conservatives but if it does, it will only happen if it's outflanked and outfought on the right.
Or merge with it; it still seems to exist 65 years later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Empire_Loyalists
(Though of course, Benn knew exactly what he was doing with the misleadingly-named Campaign for Labour Party Democracy; Ed Miliband, by contrast, didn't).
sent you a mail since I cant make petrol bombs now
I was surprised to find that The Cotswolds featured as a constituency for Referendum purposes, and even more surprised to find it was one of the few non-metropolitan regions to vote Remain. Presumably places like Stroud, Stow, Cirencester and of course Cheltenham outweighed the collective rural idiocy of the Shires.
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
The moment that Conservative MPs fail to keep a populist Right-wing candidate away from the membership ballot they'll win, and that will be it. Our politics is going the way of the American system: even if many, perhaps most, of the people would prefer pragmatism, in terms of the minority whose opinions really count - i.e. the people who howl the loudest and the most frequently - compromise equals heresy.
Even if the Brexit situation is definitively resolved (insofar as it ever can be) one way or the other, that won't change.
Received your email and replied.
They were losing bombers to anti-aircraft fire and to fighters, so they did a statistical analysis on the distribution of damage on the aircraft that did get back. The service brass wanted to add armour plating to the areas that had sustained the most damage on the returning aircraft.
Instead, the analysts pointed out that armouring the areas that hadn't been damaged on the returning aircraft was the way ahead (and indeed saved more aircraft when it was employed). Because the aircraft that had sustained a lot of damage in these areas were the ones that hadn't got back.
While I get the intent to not lose any more of the existing voters, in order to get the ones back that have been lost already, appealling to them is the necessity. For everyone.
However, a GE before Brexit seems to me unlikely.