> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Con needs to be a darker blue there > > > > I see even Hanbury Strategies now has TBP ahead. > > +20!! > > What a putaway that previous poll of there's was
It may have been an accurate snapshot when it was taken.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Byronic said: > > What on earth possessed us all to think she'd be an OK prime minister? She is so bad, so very very very bad, wooden, stubborn, narrow-minded, clueless and awkward, I now believe she'd have been a pretty bad PM even if she hadn't had the mess of Brexit to "fix". As it is, she will go down as one of the worst in British history. > > She managed to avoid having to resign as Home Secretary in six years, which was impressive given her predecessors, but has looked less impressive as the full effect of decisions that she made in that job has begun to become evident. > > And she would never have become Home Secretary if Davis hadn't flounced out of the shadow Cabinet to trigger one of the more bizarre by-elections - so that's another way in which he had a hand in creating the mess we are in.
Wasn't Chris Grayling Shadow Home Sec prior to the 2010 election?
Moreover, the 2014 EU elections were held on the same day as the Local Elections to boost turnout. The last stand alone EU elections were in 1999 and saw saw turnout at 24%.
“Oh, but whatabout Nigel and his spending?” doesn’t change that this campaign needs to comply with the appropriate laws. They apply equally to everyone.
“Oh, but whatabout Nigel and his spending?” doesn’t change that this campaign needs to comply with the appropriate laws. They apply equally to everyone.
Really? Leavers don't care in the least about electoral law breaches by Leave campaigns. Their newfound interest is fascinating to watch.
> I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong?
Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017.
I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
Quite right. I dismissed Survation in 2017 because it implied the ridiculous result of Labour winning Canterbury.
> @FrancisUrquhart said: > I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook. > > I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
There is no election or date mentioned in that advert as far as I can see. On that basis, whoever paid for it could deny it had any connection with the EU elections.
> > There is no election or date mentioned in that advert as far as I can see. On that basis, whoever paid for it could deny it had any connection with the EU elections.
Utterly irrelevant - they have mentioned the Brexit party inside the regulated period.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini. > > > > > > > > > > > Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke. > > > > > > Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy. > > > > > > Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO. > > > > > > History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain. < > > > > ++++++ > > > > > > I don't like Farage, but comparing Farage to Hitler, in any form, is just the most dribbling, hysterical nonsense. Calm down and have a cup of tea. > > > > If you want a better comparison he is a classic democratic western populist, a mix of, say, Pym Fortuyn and Berlusconi. Such politicians may well be undesirable, but they are not going to re-open the gas chambers. > > And I didn’t say he was and expressly stated that I did not think he was like Hitler. > > Nothing like Pim Fortuyn IMO. > > People are far too complacent about how easily this sort of approach to politics can segue into something very much more extreme. I hope I am wrong but I feel something worrying and dark is happening to British politics, both from the left and right. And I note that those who disagree with my views (which may very well be wrong) have no answers to the facts.
I gave you answers to your facts. You just didnt like the answers.
And I don't accept your claims you were not comparing Hitler and Farage. What you were doing was using an easy smear so you could then backpedal if you were challenged. There is no other possible reason for using that particular German phrase. A very poor show on your oart.
“Oh, but whatabout Nigel and his spending?” doesn’t change that this campaign needs to comply with the appropriate laws. They apply equally to everyone.
Really? Leavers don't care in the least about electoral law breaches by Leave campaigns. Their newfound interest is fascinating to watch.
Just following in your footsteps. I assume you are equally appalled?
Small party’s voters are more engaged by definition, otherwise they would just vote for the main two, so they always turnout. That’s why say in Newport West the number of votes for the smaller parties stayed largely the same from the general election, but their voteshare increased because of the drop in turnout.
This is why low turnouts are said to favour smaller parties. Elections are won and lost by what the less engaged do; stick to the main parties, switch allegiance, or simply not turn out.
Whilst not adhering to the rules on spending etc is.. regrettable I would be uncomfortable voiding the EU election results due to breaches of the rules by "Led by donkeys"
> @david_herdson said: > > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle.
The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate.
We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance?
That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini. > > > Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke. > > > Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy. > > > Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO. > > > History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain. < > > ++++++ > > I don't like Farage, but comparing Farage to Hitler, in any form, is just the most dribbling, hysterical nonsense. Calm down and have a cup of tea. > > If you want a better comparison he is a classic democratic western populist, a mix of, say, Pym Fortuyn and Berlusconi. Such politicians may well be undesirable, but they are not going to re-open the gas chambers. > > And I didn’t say he was and expressly stated that I did not think he was like Hitler. > > Nothing like Pim Fortuyn IMO. > > People are far too complacent about how easily this sort of approach to politics can segue into something very much more extreme. I hope I am wrong but I feel something worrying and dark is happening to British politics, both from the left and right. And I note that those who disagree with my views (which may very well be wrong) have no answers to the facts. > > I gave you answers to your facts. You just didnt like the answers. > > And I don't accept your claims you were not comparing Hitler and Farage. What you were doing was using an easy smear so you could then backpedal if you were challenged. There is no other possible reason for using that particular German phrase. A very poor show on your oart.
And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad.
I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
> @Recidivist said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong. > > > > Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong? > > > > Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017. > > > > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed. > > Quite right. I dismissed Survation in 2017 because it implied the ridiculous result of Labour winning Canterbury.
Wasn't it the YouGov model that was predicting that result?
> @Pulpstar said: > Whilst not adhering to the rules on spending etc is.. regrettable I would be uncomfortable voiding the EU election results due to breaches of the rules by "Led by donkeys"
Not even if it were evil Russian money that funded it ?
Whilst not adhering to the rules on spending etc is.. regrettable I would be uncomfortable voiding the EU election results due to breaches of the rules by "Led by donkeys"
It’s usually just a large fine isn’t it? The couple of recent prosecutions were for candidates that had way overspent or failed to keep adequate records.
The EC really do need to get a grip on spending though, especially on social media. The rules need to be clear and simple to understand, rather than ambiguous and open to interpretation as they are at the moment.
I see that UKIP have been given the final PPB to be aired on Tuesday evening with the Labour PPB on Monday. The Tories appear tonight. Doubtless the order reflects the results of the 2014 election when UKIP polled the highest vote share followed by Labour.
> > The EC really do need to get a grip on spending though, especially on social media. The rules need to be clear and simple to understand, rather than ambiguous and open to interpretation as they are at the moment.
The rules are clear in this case - the Donkeys have just failed to abide by them. The filthy cheats.
> @ah009 said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem: > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392 > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem. > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed. > > I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle. > > The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate. > > We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance? > > That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
You can reasonably doubt it but the odds on both the Lib Dems and Brexit Party give plenty of scope for doubt.
Besides, it's the potential collapse of the Con vote which could be the determining factor. If 75% of the UKIP vote goes to Brexit, and 50% of the Con vote does (which seems a cautious estimate), that puts Farage's lot on 24% before you consider any further Lab-BXP swing or whether the UKIP or Con swings would be even larger. Add in Lab-Grn, Lab-LD and Con-LD swings and I can see it being very close.
> > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
>
> I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle.
>
> The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate.
>
> We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance?
>
> That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
You can reasonably doubt it but the odds on both the Lib Dems and Brexit Party give plenty of scope for doubt.
Besides, it's the potential collapse of the Con vote which could be the determining factor. If 75% of the UKIP vote goes to Brexit, and 50% of the Con vote does (which seems a cautious estimate), that puts Farage's lot on 24% before you consider any further Lab-BXP swing or whether the UKIP or Con swings would be even larger. Add in Lab-Grn, Lab-LD and Con-LD swings and I can see it being very close.
Backing both BXP and LD at 11/8 combined cant be bad shout, if the prices are still 4/1 and 7/2
> > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
>
> I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle.
>
> The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate.
>
> We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance?
>
> That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
You can reasonably doubt it but the odds on both the Lib Dems and Brexit Party give plenty of scope for doubt.
Besides, it's the potential collapse of the Con vote which could be the determining factor. If 75% of the UKIP vote goes to Brexit, and 50% of the Con vote does (which seems a cautious estimate), that puts Farage's lot on 24% before you consider any further Lab-BXP swing or whether the UKIP or Con swings would be even larger. Add in Lab-Grn, Lab-LD and Con-LD swings and I can see it being very close.
Backing both BXP and LD at 11/8 combined cant be bad shout, if the prices are still 4/1 and 7/2
> @RobD said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem: > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392 > > > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem. > > > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe. > > Isn't that how D'hondt works?
Not exactly. With the poll numbers from YouGov Plaid take the fourth seat as Brexit are so far ahead they take the third.
Therefore tactical voting for the Lib Dems would not be enough to stop the Farage bandwagon taking two seats in Wales.
> > I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
>
>
>
> Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong?
>
>
>
> Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017.
>
>
>
> I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
>
> Quite right. I dismissed Survation in 2017 because it implied the ridiculous result of Labour winning Canterbury.
Wasn't it the YouGov model that was predicting that result?
Errr, yeah. But the point is I allowed my prejudices to overrule the data.
That bar chart graphic, along with Theresa May's namecheck earlier today, reveals that other parties still think Farage is a net vote loser for Brexit
No, I think it means they think thumping Farage is an effective nudge for other Remainers. The truly comical bit of the bar chart is the way the Labour vote crunches down far more than the Plaid one.
> > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
> >
> > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
>
> Isn't that how D'hondt works?
Not exactly. With the poll numbers from YouGov Plaid take the fourth seat as Brexit are so far ahead they take the third.
Therefore tactical voting for the Lib Dems would not be enough to stop the Farage bandwagon taking two seats in Wales.
It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th.
1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5) 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9) 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%. (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5) 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9) 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%. (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
There's a germ of truth in the chart. But, as usual, the sizes of the bars are inaccurate (notably post-the Labour crunch) and the conclusion "Only the Lib Dems..." is completely untrue.
> @Tissue_Price said: > It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th. > > 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5) > 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9) > 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it. > > If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%. > (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved) > > > > There's a germ of truth in the chart. But, as usual, the sizes of the bars are inaccurate (notably post-the Labour crunch) and the conclusion "Only the Lib Dems..." is completely untrue.
It is about time that someone complained about that practice which is clearly propagating an untrue statement and designed to mislead.
> @Andy_Cooke said: > It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th. > > 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5) > 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9) > 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it. > > If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%. > (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
Well, if you want to cite margin of error then you can't even be entirely confident that Labour have enough votes for a seat (ahead of the second seat for the Brexit Party), so the whole tactical voting argument goes entirely out of the window.
If there's any accuracy in the Brexit vote share then it really will require a lucky alignment of the planets to deny them a second Welsh MEP.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > I believe that everything now hinges on this point: > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939 My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
Surely the correct course is to block it until they believe the votes for a 2nd ref are there?
That has a very substantial risk of not being able to prevent a crash-out at the end of October, for the reason Nick Boles gives: there isn't a clear parliamentary route to preventing it.
Of course, that won't bother Jeremy Corbyn and Seumas Milne, but it should bother sensible Labour MPs.
My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
They can pass whatever 'no deal' acts they wish, that won't of itself prevent a no-deal crash out.
Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%).
But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling.
The average Labour share in the last 10 polls for the Euro elections is 20%, compared to 25.4% in 2014. If you apply that to London, Labour would go from 36.7% to 28.9%. I think that's likely to be high enough to retain first place, with both the Brexit Party and the LDs likely to get around 20%.
> @williamglenn said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > I like the Brexit Partys "mint" blue colour! > > > --------- > > Perhaps instead of saying we can't put the genie back in the bottle we should say we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Andy_Cooke said: > > It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th. > > > > 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5) > > 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9) > > 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it. > > > > If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%. > > (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved) > > Well, if you want to cite margin of error then you can't even be entirely confident that Labour have enough votes for a seat (ahead of the second seat for the Brexit Party), so the whole tactical voting argument goes entirely out of the window. > > If there's any accuracy in the Brexit vote share then it really will require a lucky alignment of the planets to deny them a second Welsh MEP.
Surely in Wales with 4 seats, the gap between 3rd and 4th matters less than the placing between 3rd, 4th and 5th?
> @Byronic said: > > @Scott_P said: > > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<; > > +++++ > > Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%). > > But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling. > >
Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
Over my pay grade I’m afraid. I’m guessing that people have to go out of their way to buy newspapers while billboards are in your face like it or not
If the owners of Costa coffee decided to change the sign above each shop to ‘Vote Lib Dem’ for the next week, would that be ok?
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day? > > They can pass whatever 'no deal' acts they wish, that won't of itself prevent a no-deal crash out.
The only one they could pass that would do that would be a European Union (Revocation of Withdrawal Notice) Act. But I don't think the numbers are there for that and Corbyn couldn't be relied on - unless perhaps Labour conference voted for it, against his wishes?
But passing that without a referendum first would be unlikely to lower the political temperature in the country.
> @Byronic said: > > @Scott_P said: > > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<; > > +++++ > > Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%). > > But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling. > >
Remember, this is not quite a 'trend' line, but rather a last 6 (iirc)average . TBP share is still catching up, some pollsters still had them in the low 20s last time out. Expect it to flatten out soon. LD line in the graph should continue to rise for the next few polls.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @isam said: > > https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1129404732508909569 > > Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this? > > There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc. > > So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
> @RobD said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem: > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392 > > > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem. > > > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe. > > Isn't that how D'hondt works?
No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%.
> And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad. > > None so blind etc..... <
+++++
You used the word "Fuhrerprinzip", applied to Farage, in your "non-comparison" with Hitler. You then claimed that Farage wasn't "just like Hitler", clearly implying that he is a "bit like Hitler", or *somewhat* like Hitler?
You said Farage had encouraged violence, was using anti-Semitic tropes, was whipping up hatred, just like Hitler did, only that wasn't your comparison, oh no.
This kind of overstatement is doubly stupid, because it means Farage's detractors can all be dumped in a box marked "crazy Remainers", and sensible and logical examination of Farage's many flaws is thereby ignored.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > I believe that everything now hinges on this point: > > > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939 > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension.
Good price. Paddy's are just 9/5. With 0-4.99% at 4/9. Combining that 4/9 with your 3/1 and you should be guaranteed a profit. Paddy's are 1/20 they get 6 or fewer seats. Short but I think it should be shorter.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @RobD said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem: > > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392 > > > > > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem. > > > > > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe. > > > > Isn't that how D'hondt works? > > No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%.
Even more peak Lib Dem in.that they have been arguing it exactly the opposite way for England, at the expense of prospective Green MEPs.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > I believe that everything now hinges on this point: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939 > > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day? > > It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension.
The point of legislating in October would presumably be to compel the Executive to request another extension similarly as in April.
> @Pro_Rata said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @RobD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem: > > > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392 > > > > > > > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem. > > > > > > > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe. > > > > > > Isn't that how D'hondt works? > > > > No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%. > > Even more peak Lib Dem in.that they have been arguing it exactly the opposite way for England, at the expense of prospective Green MEPs.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day? > > They can pass whatever 'no deal' acts they wish, that won't of itself prevent a no-deal crash out.
Sure, but it has as much impact as amending the WAB, which Boles believes would be enough to do so.
If he wants to argue for supporting a PM committed to avoiding no deal, in preference to whoever is elected to lead the Tories, then that's different.
Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
Also, although their main target is Farage they have had pops at other leavers. I liked the one they did of Corbyn which was mocked up as a tweet that was completely blank apart from the hashtag #Brexit.
> @Cyclefree said: > > And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad. > > None so blind etc.....
------
Actually I was being polite. It was not a smear on your part but an outright lie. The fact you continue to repeat the idiocy whilst pretending you don't mean it just shows how much you have lost the plot.
You tried to use your 'facts' as support for a claim that there was a similarity between Farage and Hitler. Of course you were too cowardly to actually make the comparison directly so you used a phrase that could only ever be considered to be in relevant in the context of the Nazis.
When you were challenged on this with evidence about why you were wrong you tried to pretend you didn't mean it like that. That was also thoroughly dishonest.
Obfuscation and backtracking whilst still trying to maintain your attack shows intellectual bankruptcy on your part.
I don't want Farage anywhere near the House of Commons. Nor do I believe he will get there - or at least will get any significant number of seats there. But your comparisons and snide attacks will do nothing to prevent that and might actually make it more likely.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > I believe that everything now hinges on this point: > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939 > > > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day? > > > > It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension. > > The point of legislating in October would presumably be to compel the Executive to request another extension similarly as in April.
That is always an option of course. But the real question is whether the EU will grant it.
> @Pro_Rata said: > > @Byronic said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<; > > > > +++++ > > > > Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%). > > > > But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling. > > > > > > Remember, this is not quite a 'trend' line, but rather a last 6 (iirc)average . TBP share is still catching up, some pollsters still had them in the low 20s last time out. Expect it to flatten out soon. LD line in the graph should continue to rise for the next few polls.
Labour's average vote share from the last six polls seems to be circa 22%. Why is the graph putting them below 20%? Possibly the Yougov survey is being given greater weight on account of the survey size.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > A not entirely innocent question. How many European Parliament seats does the brains trust think that the Conservatives will win next week?
> @Byronic said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad. > > > > None so blind etc..... < > > +++++ > > You used the word "Fuhrerprinzip", applied to Farage, in your "non-comparison" with Hitler. You then claimed that Farage wasn't "just like Hitler", clearly implying that he is a "bit like Hitler", or *somewhat* like Hitler? > > You said Farage had encouraged violence, was using anti-Semitic tropes, was whipping up hatred, just like Hitler did, only that wasn't your comparison, oh no. > > This kind of overstatement is doubly stupid, because it means Farage's detractors can all be dumped in a box marked "crazy Remainers", and sensible and logical examination of Farage's many flaws is thereby ignored. > > This is foolish, and beneath your intelligence. >
If you can't read accurately what I said there is little point debating the point. Still for the record I did not say that Farage had encouraged violence or whipped up hatred. I pointed out that he had talked about picking up his rifle (true) and asked whether that was a joke. And I pointed out the types of people who sought to attach themselves to him.
He has used anti-semitic tropes.
It is perfectly fair comment to point out the similarities in his leadership style and approach to politics to other political leaders. And that is exactly what I intended to say in relation to Farage. Person A can be like Person B in relation to one aspect of their behaviour without being like that person in every aspect. The same criticism can be made of Corbyn's leadership style. Indeed, when I have said so - about Corbyn (in numerous thread headers) - about his belief that Labour is him and he is Labour, there was no such criticism. Odd that.
My view is that May and Corbyn and Farage have both, in broadly similar ways, even if coming from different points on the political spectrum, introduced and spread an illiberal style of politics which is quite at odds with what we have traditionally had in Britain. And which, IMO, has troubling echoes of an earlier and darker past in European and British life.
I think the reason this has happened is because, in the words of WB Yeats, the centre has not held. I agree that a cool response is needed. I am, as it happens, planning a thread header on why this is and how one should assess these new or revived political movements. But I will continue to call out what I see as I see it.
I think these Tory members need to put more water in it.....what, in Boris Ministerial career persuades them that he is either competent or up to the job?
Comments
> > @isam said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Con needs to be a darker blue there
>
>
>
> I see even Hanbury Strategies now has TBP ahead.
>
> +20!!
>
> What a putaway that previous poll of there's was
It may have been an accurate snapshot when it was taken.
> > @Byronic said:
> > What on earth possessed us all to think she'd be an OK prime minister? She is so bad, so very very very bad, wooden, stubborn, narrow-minded, clueless and awkward, I now believe she'd have been a pretty bad PM even if she hadn't had the mess of Brexit to "fix". As it is, she will go down as one of the worst in British history.
>
> She managed to avoid having to resign as Home Secretary in six years, which was impressive given her predecessors, but has looked less impressive as the full effect of decisions that she made in that job has begun to become evident.
>
> And she would never have become Home Secretary if Davis hadn't flounced out of the shadow Cabinet to trigger one of the more bizarre by-elections - so that's another way in which he had a hand in creating the mess we are in.
Wasn't Chris Grayling Shadow Home Sec prior to the 2010 election?
Paging Carole.....
> https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672?s=21
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081?s=21
Moreover, the 2014 EU elections were held on the same day as the Local Elections to boost turnout. The last stand alone EU elections were in 1999 and saw saw turnout at 24%.
> https://order-order.com/2019/05/17/anti-brexit-billboard-campaign-massive-apparent-breach-electoral-law/
>
> Paging Carole.....
Disgusting lawbreaking - an illegal campaign.
“Oh, but whatabout Nigel and his spending?” doesn’t change that this campaign needs to comply with the appropriate laws. They apply equally to everyone.
> > @RobD said:
>
> > https://order-order.com/2019/05/17/anti-brexit-billboard-campaign-massive-apparent-breach-electoral-law/
>
> >
>
> > Paging Carole.....
>
>
>
> Disgusting lawbreaking - an illegal campaign.
>
> Sickening, isn’t it?
Should imagine C4 will be all over it tonight.
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
There is no election or date mentioned in that advert as far as I can see. On that basis, whoever paid for it could deny it had any connection with the EU elections.
>
> There is no election or date mentioned in that advert as far as I can see. On that basis, whoever paid for it could deny it had any connection with the EU elections.
Utterly irrelevant - they have mentioned the Brexit party inside the regulated period.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini.
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke.
>
> >
>
> > Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy.
>
> >
>
> > Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO.
>
> >
>
> > History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain. <
>
>
>
> ++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't like Farage, but comparing Farage to Hitler, in any form, is just the most dribbling, hysterical nonsense. Calm down and have a cup of tea.
>
>
>
> If you want a better comparison he is a classic democratic western populist, a mix of, say, Pym Fortuyn and Berlusconi. Such politicians may well be undesirable, but they are not going to re-open the gas chambers.
>
> And I didn’t say he was and expressly stated that I did not think he was like Hitler.
>
> Nothing like Pim Fortuyn IMO.
>
> People are far too complacent about how easily this sort of approach to politics can segue into something very much more extreme. I hope I am wrong but I feel something worrying and dark is happening to British politics, both from the left and right. And I note that those who disagree with my views (which may very well be wrong) have no answers to the facts.
I gave you answers to your facts. You just didnt like the answers.
And I don't accept your claims you were not comparing Hitler and Farage. What you were doing was using an easy smear so you could then backpedal if you were challenged. There is no other possible reason for using that particular German phrase. A very poor show on your oart.
This is why low turnouts are said to favour smaller parties. Elections are won and lost by what the less engaged do; stick to the main parties, switch allegiance, or simply not turn out.
>
> I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle.
The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate.
We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance?
That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini.
> > > Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke.
> > > Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy.
> > > Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO.
> > > History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain. <
> > ++++++
> > I don't like Farage, but comparing Farage to Hitler, in any form, is just the most dribbling, hysterical nonsense. Calm down and have a cup of tea.
> > If you want a better comparison he is a classic democratic western populist, a mix of, say, Pym Fortuyn and Berlusconi. Such politicians may well be undesirable, but they are not going to re-open the gas chambers.
> > And I didn’t say he was and expressly stated that I did not think he was like Hitler.
> > Nothing like Pim Fortuyn IMO.
> > People are far too complacent about how easily this sort of approach to politics can segue into something very much more extreme. I hope I am wrong but I feel something worrying and dark is happening to British politics, both from the left and right. And I note that those who disagree with my views (which may very well be wrong) have no answers to the facts.
>
> I gave you answers to your facts. You just didnt like the answers.
>
> And I don't accept your claims you were not comparing Hitler and Farage. What you were doing was using an easy smear so you could then backpedal if you were challenged. There is no other possible reason for using that particular German phrase. A very poor show on your oart.
And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad.
None so blind etc.....
> Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
> > @AndyJS said:
>
> > I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
>
>
>
> Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong?
>
>
>
> Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017.
>
>
>
> I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
>
> Quite right. I dismissed Survation in 2017 because it implied the ridiculous result of Labour winning Canterbury.
Wasn't it the YouGov model that was predicting that result?
> Whilst not adhering to the rules on spending etc is.. regrettable I would be uncomfortable voiding the EU election results due to breaches of the rules by "Led by donkeys"
Not even if it were evil Russian money that funded it ?
The EC really do need to get a grip on spending though, especially on social media. The rules need to be clear and simple to understand, rather than ambiguous and open to interpretation as they are at the moment.
>
> The EC really do need to get a grip on spending though, especially on social media. The rules need to be clear and simple to understand, rather than ambiguous and open to interpretation as they are at the moment.
The rules are clear in this case - the Donkeys have just failed to abide by them. The filthy cheats.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/46c0e79c22317e57db3432db433103a2eb15d7b6/0_0_667_426/master/667.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=3292b9084717366db10e9f81d61897fd
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
>
> I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
>
> Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
Isn't that how D'hondt works?
> > @david_herdson said:
> >
> > I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
>
> I think the pollsters do a tremendously good job given the difficulties that they face, but their flaws strike at the very heart of the mathematical basis on which they are built. The fundamental assumption is that they have a random sample. If you could create a random sample of truthful responses then polling would be a doddle.
>
> The extent to which they can obtain a random sample has deteriorated over time. In particular, non-response bias is at crazy levels now. This increases the need for adjustments and quotas to compensate.
>
> We can see that this is a dominant factor by comparing the YouGov and ComRes EU polls. The two YouGov polls published after the local elections give Labour vote shares of 16% and 15%. The three ComRes polls give Labour shares of 26%, 25% and 25%. If these differences were due to random variation then it's unlikely ComRes would randomly happen to have much higher shares for Labour than YouGov. It is likely that the difference in the shares is entirely methodological. At least one of them has to be wrong. Most likely one will be right enough to claim bragging rights, but can we be confident that they were right for any reason other than chance?
>
> That's not to say that I doubt the general picture that the polls are showing - that support for the main two parties has suffered since Brexit was deferred, seemingly indefinitely - but on the specifics of whether that collapse will be large enough to overturn the huge lead Labour had in London in 2014? I think you can reasonably doubt that.
You can reasonably doubt it but the odds on both the Lib Dems and Brexit Party give plenty of scope for doubt.
Besides, it's the potential collapse of the Con vote which could be the determining factor. If 75% of the UKIP vote goes to Brexit, and 50% of the Con vote does (which seems a cautious estimate), that puts Farage's lot on 24% before you consider any further Lab-BXP swing or whether the UKIP or Con swings would be even larger. Add in Lab-Grn, Lab-LD and Con-LD swings and I can see it being very close.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
> >
> > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
> >
> > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
>
> Isn't that how D'hondt works?
Not exactly. With the poll numbers from YouGov Plaid take the fourth seat as Brexit are so far ahead they take the third.
Therefore tactical voting for the Lib Dems would not be enough to stop the Farage bandwagon taking two seats in Wales.
1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5)
2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9)
3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%.
(Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409
I like the Brexit Partys "mint" blue colour!
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
>
> I like the Brexit Partys "mint" blue colour!
>
---------
Perhaps instead of saying we can't put the genie back in the bottle we should say we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
> It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th.
>
> 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5)
> 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9)
> 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
>
> If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%.
> (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
>
>
>
> There's a germ of truth in the chart. But, as usual, the sizes of the bars are inaccurate (notably post-the Labour crunch) and the conclusion "Only the Lib Dems..." is completely untrue.
It is about time that someone complained about that practice which is clearly propagating an untrue statement and designed to mislead.
> It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th.
>
> 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5)
> 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9)
> 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
>
> If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%.
> (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
Well, if you want to cite margin of error then you can't even be entirely confident that Labour have enough votes for a seat (ahead of the second seat for the Brexit Party), so the whole tactical voting argument goes entirely out of the window.
If there's any accuracy in the Brexit vote share then it really will require a lucky alignment of the planets to deny them a second Welsh MEP.
> I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
>
> https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
Are people still believing that Labour want a second referendum? How sweet.
> I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
>
> https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
Surely the correct course is to block it until they believe the votes for a 2nd ref are there?
> I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
>
> https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
Of course, that won't bother Jeremy Corbyn and Seumas Milne, but it should bother sensible Labour MPs.
> https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<;
+++++
Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%).
But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> >
> > I like the Brexit Partys "mint" blue colour!
> >
> ---------
>
> Perhaps instead of saying we can't put the genie back in the bottle we should say we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Or the Polo back in the packet!
> > @Andy_Cooke said:
> > It's extremely close between 3rd and 4th.
> >
> > 1st seat: Brexit on 33 (go to 16.5)
> > 2nd seat: Labour on 18 (go to 9)
> > 3rd seat: Between Brexit (16.5) and Plaid (16). Given normal poll MoE, we can't really say who'd get it.
> >
> > If Green/Chuk do go LD here (well, at least 7%-worth out of the 12% on those two), then there's a very real shot of 3rd/4th being Plaid/LD. It gets to margins of under 1%.
> > (Not worth swapping to Labour, as the tactical vote utility would be halved)
>
> Well, if you want to cite margin of error then you can't even be entirely confident that Labour have enough votes for a seat (ahead of the second seat for the Brexit Party), so the whole tactical voting argument goes entirely out of the window.
>
> If there's any accuracy in the Brexit vote share then it really will require a lucky alignment of the planets to deny them a second Welsh MEP.
Surely in Wales with 4 seats, the gap between 3rd and 4th matters less than the placing between 3rd, 4th and 5th?
Latest poll was:
ELECTED:
Brexit 33, Lab 18, Brexit/2 16.5, Plaid 16
MISS OUT:
Brexit/3 11, LD 10 (Green 8, CHUK 4)
A decent swing is required for both Plaid and LD to exceed either Labour or Brexit/2 and it's a longish shot.
But both Plaid, who look modestely safe, and LD look like valid Remain tactical votes for Wales.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<;
>
> +++++
>
> Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%).
>
> But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling.
>
>
Wasn't Ave It projecting 40% for Brexit Party?
#AVEIT !!!!!!!!!!!
> https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1129404732508909569
Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
If the owners of Costa coffee decided to change the sign above each shop to ‘Vote Lib Dem’ for the next week, would that be ok?
> My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
>
> They can pass whatever 'no deal' acts they wish, that won't of itself prevent a no-deal crash out.
The only one they could pass that would do that would be a European Union (Revocation of Withdrawal Notice) Act. But I don't think the numbers are there for that and Corbyn couldn't be relied on - unless perhaps Labour conference voted for it, against his wishes?
But passing that without a referendum first would be unlikely to lower the political temperature in the country.
> https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1129415587636101120
Kit Malthouses cleaner is standing????
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<;
>
> +++++
>
> Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%).
>
> But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling.
>
>
Remember, this is not quite a 'trend' line, but rather a last 6 (iirc)average . TBP share is still catching up, some pollsters still had them in the low 20s last time out. Expect it to flatten out soon. LD line in the graph should continue to rise for the next few polls.
> > @isam said:
> > https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1129404732508909569
>
> Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
>
> There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
>
> So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/252142/European-Parliament-NPC-2019.pdf
>
> Or the Polo back in the packet!
Clearly a better mint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlcs_yg118Q
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
> >
> > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
> >
> > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
>
> Isn't that how D'hondt works?
No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%.
https://twitter.com/JamesKanag/status/1129403971389595648
> And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad.
>
> None so blind etc..... <
+++++
You used the word "Fuhrerprinzip", applied to Farage, in your "non-comparison" with Hitler. You then claimed that Farage wasn't "just like Hitler", clearly implying that he is a "bit like Hitler", or *somewhat* like Hitler?
You said Farage had encouraged violence, was using anti-Semitic tropes, was whipping up hatred, just like Hitler did, only that wasn't your comparison, oh no.
This kind of overstatement is doubly stupid, because it means Farage's detractors can all be dumped in a box marked "crazy Remainers", and sensible and logical examination of Farage's many flaws is thereby ignored.
This is foolish, and beneath your intelligence.
>
> Kit Malthouses cleaner is standing????
Andrea Jenkyns is taking soundings.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
> My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension.
> 3/1 5-10%?
Good price. Paddy's are just 9/5. With 0-4.99% at 4/9. Combining that 4/9 with your 3/1 and you should be guaranteed a profit. Paddy's are 1/20 they get 6 or fewer seats. Short but I think it should be shorter.
> > @RobD said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
> > >
> > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
> > >
> > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
> >
> > Isn't that how D'hondt works?
>
> No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%.
Even more peak Lib Dem in.that they have been arguing it exactly the opposite way for England, at the expense of prospective Green MEPs.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
> > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
>
> It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension.
The point of legislating in October would presumably be to compel the Executive to request another extension similarly as in April.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Tissue_Price said:
> > > > > Bollocks to bar charts! This is truly advanced stuff, even for a Lib Dem:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392
> > > >
> > > > I can't stop watching that. Look at how the Labour vote decreases by 90% after a single MEP is elected. Dishonest bar charts is so Lib Dem. Dishonest animated bar charts is _peak_ Lib Dem.
> > > >
> > > > Probably still going to vote for them though. Maybe.
> > >
> > > Isn't that how D'hondt works?
> >
> > No. The vote of each party falls by 50% when they get an MEP elected. That graphic shows Labour dropping by probably 80 or 90%.
>
> Even more peak Lib Dem in.that they have been arguing it exactly the opposite way for England, at the expense of prospective Green MEPs.
Normal behaviour for any party.
> https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1129415587636101120
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1129416735516291079
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1129415723162525697
> My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
>
> They can pass whatever 'no deal' acts they wish, that won't of itself prevent a no-deal crash out.
Sure, but it has as much impact as amending the WAB, which Boles believes would be enough to do so.
If he wants to argue for supporting a PM committed to avoiding no deal, in preference to whoever is elected to lead the Tories, then that's different.
> What’s this times story?
Boris runaway favourite with Con members.
Moron Matt Hancock on 1%
Issue is how does he get to be one of the last two?
> https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1129419528180510721
Thats not going to help him get onto the ballot in the first place......
>
> And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad.
>
> None so blind etc.....
------
Actually I was being polite. It was not a smear on your part but an outright lie. The fact you continue to repeat the idiocy whilst pretending you don't mean it just shows how much you have lost the plot.
You tried to use your 'facts' as support for a claim that there was a similarity between Farage and Hitler. Of course you were too cowardly to actually make the comparison directly so you used a phrase that could only ever be considered to be in relevant in the context of the Nazis.
When you were challenged on this with evidence about why you were wrong you tried to pretend you didn't mean it like that. That was also thoroughly dishonest.
Obfuscation and backtracking whilst still trying to maintain your attack shows intellectual bankruptcy on your part.
I don't want Farage anywhere near the House of Commons. Nor do I believe he will get there - or at least will get any significant number of seats there. But your comparisons and snide attacks will do nothing to prevent that and might actually make it more likely.
Will they be able to exert enough pressure through their local parties to ensure he is?
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > I believe that everything now hinges on this point:
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1129312134310055939
> > > My recollection was that the anti no deal Act was passed after backbenchers successfully amended a business motion. What's to stop that procedure being followed again? Do they have business motions to set the business of the House for each day?
> >
> > It makes no difference. Passing motions saying No Deal cannot happen does nothing. It will still happen if nothing else is done. If the EU will not extend again in October then the only way to stop No Deal will be to either legislate for a referendum - which needs the Government to support it - or vote through a Deal. This is exactly the position we were in in March and which was prevented by the extension.
>
> The point of legislating in October would presumably be to compel the Executive to request another extension similarly as in April.
That is always an option of course. But the real question is whether the EU will grant it.
> > @Byronic said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409<;
> >
> > +++++
> >
> > Remarkable. If that trend continues until next Thursday, and it is proved to be true, then BXP will get near 40% of the vote, the LDs will be a comfy 2nd, near 20%, Labour will be somewhere between 10-15% and the Tories will be struggling to beat the Greens (on 5-10%).
> >
> > But, I do not expect this. I think BXP might have peaked. I reckon they will fall back slightly to 30+% and the Tories and Labour will both recover - a little. BXP will still win and the Tories and Labour will still suffer a horrible mauling.
> >
> >
>
> Remember, this is not quite a 'trend' line, but rather a last 6 (iirc)average . TBP share is still catching up, some pollsters still had them in the low 20s last time out. Expect it to flatten out soon. LD line in the graph should continue to rise for the next few polls.
Labour's average vote share from the last six polls seems to be circa 22%. Why is the graph putting them below 20%? Possibly the Yougov survey is being given greater weight on account of the survey size.
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1129417820138295298
> A not entirely innocent question. How many European Parliament seats does the brains trust think that the Conservatives will win next week?
Nine ?
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > And I gave you more facts to which you provided no answer. I have not back-pedalled. I said exactly what I think about the way Farage is operating and the facts on which I base my view. His MO is not something new; it has been used by leaders throughout history and is also being used by a number of other party leaders in Europe and elsewhere at present. You call it a smear because you do not like the message. Too bad.
> >
> > None so blind etc..... <
>
> +++++
>
> You used the word "Fuhrerprinzip", applied to Farage, in your "non-comparison" with Hitler. You then claimed that Farage wasn't "just like Hitler", clearly implying that he is a "bit like Hitler", or *somewhat* like Hitler?
>
> You said Farage had encouraged violence, was using anti-Semitic tropes, was whipping up hatred, just like Hitler did, only that wasn't your comparison, oh no.
>
> This kind of overstatement is doubly stupid, because it means Farage's detractors can all be dumped in a box marked "crazy Remainers", and sensible and logical examination of Farage's many flaws is thereby ignored.
>
> This is foolish, and beneath your intelligence.
>
If you can't read accurately what I said there is little point debating the point. Still for the record I did not say that Farage had encouraged violence or whipped up hatred. I pointed out that he had talked about picking up his rifle (true) and asked whether that was a joke. And I pointed out the types of people who sought to attach themselves to him.
He has used anti-semitic tropes.
It is perfectly fair comment to point out the similarities in his leadership style and approach to politics to other political leaders. And that is exactly what I intended to say in relation to Farage. Person A can be like Person B in relation to one aspect of their behaviour without being like that person in every aspect. The same criticism can be made of Corbyn's leadership style. Indeed, when I have said so - about Corbyn (in numerous thread headers) - about his belief that Labour is him and he is Labour, there was no such criticism. Odd that.
My view is that May and Corbyn and Farage have both, in broadly similar ways, even if coming from different points on the political spectrum, introduced and spread an illiberal style of politics which is quite at odds with what we have traditionally had in Britain. And which, IMO, has troubling echoes of an earlier and darker past in European and British life.
I think the reason this has happened is because, in the words of WB Yeats, the centre has not held. I agree that a cool response is needed. I am, as it happens, planning a thread header on why this is and how one should assess these new or revived political movements. But I will continue to call out what I see as I see it.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1129404732508909569
> >
> > Genuine question: if they are not standing as a party in the elections, are they covered by spending rules and, if so, what's the legal basis for this?
> >
> > There are, as far as I am aware, no rules prohibiting newspapers from publishing whatever they want about any of the parties, including statements that they have made previously, on any number of topics. Or of publishing opinion pieces etc.
> >
> > So what is the difference between that and putting the same stuff on a billboard or on social media?
>
> http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/252142/European-Parliament-NPC-2019.pdf
Thanks. Will read later.
> https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1129421146414354432
I think these Tory members need to put more water in it.....what, in Boris Ministerial career persuades them that he is either competent or up to the job?