> @algarkirk said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > Perspective. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856 > > > > > > I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years. > > > > "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing. > > Doesn't alter the fact that the Home Office is an abomination.
John Reid said it wasn't 'fit for purpose' back in 2006.
The justified criticism of May as Home Secretary is the lack of improvement in her department.
> @another_richard said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the ONS shows that 2017 had visitors in the UK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should have checked the data before having your rant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience > > > > > > > > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case. > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make. > > > > > > > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries. > > > > > > > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending. > > > > > > > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA > > > > > > > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are. > > > > > > > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018. > > > > > > > > A rant :-D > > > > > > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? " > > > > > > Yes, a rant. > > > > > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ? > > > > You clearly don’t have the ability to differentiate between a rant and an observation. And why would people spending money in the UK disappoint me? I’d like them to spend more, not less. That’s why it’s such a shame that last year we saw a significant dip after so many years of growth. > > A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record. > > The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'. > > Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website: > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/
That's pretty much like saying you'll find it at google.com.
> @SouthamObserver said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the ONS sho > > > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make. > > > > > > > > > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending. > > > > > > > > > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA > > > > > > > > > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018. > > > > > > > > > > A rant :-D > > > > > > > > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? " > > > > > > > > Yes, a rant. > > > > > > > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ? > > > > > > You clearly don’t have the ability to differentiate between a rant and an observation. And why would people spending money in the UK disappoint me? I’d like them to spend more, not less. That’s why it’s such a shame that last year we saw a significant dip after so many years of growth. > > > > A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record. > > > > The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'. > > > > Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website: > > > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/ > > As I say, I’m sorry you do not understand.
"I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Maybe next time you want to argue against fascist rhetoric you might lead with a moral argument rather than a dubious link to a slight decline in tourism?
> @JosiasJessop said: > In other news, there's been a stabbing overnight in my <strike>large village</strike> small town. In the last two years, that's one machete attack near my son's school, one murder in a household, one outside a pub, and it looks like last night a 15 year old stabbed an 18 year old outside the pub. > > An epidemic in our locality, or part of a wider trend? > > (I hasten to add I'm happy here, and like the place.)
Based on what I've read recently, my guess would be that the risk of falling victim to violent crime is still in decline in most of the country, outside of larger urban centres where the drug gangs are based.
No evidence of the knife crime epidemic in this small town, insofar as I am aware. Long may this continue to be the case.
You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > Perspective. > > > > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856 > > I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years. > > "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
I am also very wary of these stories. So many in the Guardian, when the full story is revealed there is a lot more going on.
Its the inverse of the Daily Mail stories where the headline says some criminal got off with a slap on the wrist because they gave some crazy sob story. Normally the sob story bit is just the lawyer doing their job and the sentence is either in line with guidelines or that the criminal has already served time a significant amount of time behind bars leading up to the trial, and the the dog eat my homework story is irrelevant to the length of the sentence.
Very much like all the Brexit opponents who didn't bother to turn out to vote three years ago. Which is why they find themselves in this desperate situation in the first place.
> It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
Try to think for a few moments in a row.
You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > Perspective. > > > > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856 > > I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years. > > "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
I daresay, but perhaps these 'sob stories' are a necessary corrective to an over priveleged, under talented woman being removed from a position that she was desperate to put herself forward for being turned into a massive sob story.
Do you think May was up to constructing the hostile environment that caused these sob stories, or do you feel she just didn't ramp up the miserable xenophobia quite enough?
> @Stereotomy said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the ONS sho > > > > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > A rant :-D > > > > > > > > > > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? " > > > > > > > > > > Yes, a rant. > > > > > > > > > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ? > > > > > > > > You clearly don’t have the ability of growth. > > > > > > A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record. > > > > > > The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'. > > > > > > Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website: > > > > > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/ > > > > As I say, I’m sorry you do not understand. > > "I'm not owned, I'm not owned!" > > Maybe next time you want to argue against fascist rhetoric you might lead with a moral argument rather than a dubious link to a slight decline in tourism?
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning? > > I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant.
On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really.
> @rottenborough said: > It is possible that many BP likely voters thought lazily that no need as clear Farage will win anyway.
Just like the 2016 referendum itself in reverse, if true.
Always thought that the hyper-enraged faction of the pro-EU youth vote, who've spent the whole of the last three years slagging off old people for supposedly robbing them of their futures, are merely looking for someone else to take the blame for their own indolence.
> @Chris said: > > @isam said: > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
> I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years.
>
> "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
I am also very wary of these stories. So many in the Guardian, when the full story is revealed there is a lot more going on.
Its the inverse of the Daily Mail stories where the headline says some criminal got off with a slap on the wrist because they gave some crazy sob story. Normally the sob story bit is just the lawyer doing their job and the sentence is either in line with guidelines or that the criminal has already served time a significant amount of time behind bars leading up to the trial, and the the dog eat my homework story is irrelevant to the length of the sentence.
You have to be a real lowlife to try and defend the Home Office or else have come from another planet.
We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
> @RobC said: > > @Chris said: > > > @isam said: > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
If the Brexit Party win 31% that would likely still be a plurality even if not a majority
> It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
Try to think for a few moments in a row.
You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
Yes it does. There are similar graphs for areas strong for the other parties, which show that areas that have strong Lib Dem and Green votes are up more than UKIP ones, which is the actual point of the story.
It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas.
> @RobC said: > > @Chris said: > > > @isam said: > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
When you can win a GE outright on 35% or even less of the vote there’s no need to govern for a majority.
> @brokenwheel said: > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
> @El_Capitano said: > The one thing that endears Boris to me is that he is the only British politician to hold high office who has ever done anything positive for cycling - the construction of the Superhighways. (Sadiq Khan has been an absolute flop in this area.) If he were to roll this out nationwide then I might even vote for him...
Yes. Though to give credit where it's due a lot of that is down to the work of the Cycling Commissioner he appointed, Andrew Gilligan, who took the monomania that he had applied in journalism in attacking Ken Livingstone to pushing through cycling infrastructure in the face of opposition.
Johnson deserves credit for appointing the right person to the job, and backing him where necessary, but it was Gilligan who was the real revelation. It would be a cheering moment if PM Johnson were to make Gilligan a Lord and Minister for Cycling.
> We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
Ok, well it may be a case of Wikipedia lying then;
> It is possible that many BP likely voters thought lazily that no need as clear Farage will win anyway.
Just like the 2016 referendum itself in reverse, if true.
Always thought that the hyper-enraged faction of the pro-EU youth vote, who've spent the whole of the last three years slagging off old people for supposedly robbing them of their futures, are merely looking for someone else to take the blame for their own indolence.
Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
> @HarryHayfield said: > Based on a vote share of: Lab 28, Brexit 25%, Lib Dem 18%, Con 14%, Green 4%, SNP 4%, Change UK 3%, UKIP 2%, Plaid 1%, Others 1%, UK-Elect projects: Lab 303, Brexit 210, Lib Dem 57, SNP 54, Plaid 5, Green 1, Ind 1, Speaker 1. Based on your assessment of the situation, I think a Lab / SNP coalition (which would become a Lab majority government post independence) is the most likely option. Note no Con MP's elected.
Brexit Party plus Tories have a majority in England on the latest Opinium
> @IanB2 said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
' The 2014 United Kingdom local elections were held on 22 May 2014. Usually these elections are held on the first Thursday in May but were postponed to coincide with the 2014 European Parliament Elections. Direct elections were held for all 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 74 district/borough councils, 20 unitary authorities and various mayoral posts in England and elections to the new councils in Northern Ireland. '
Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Where does that leave the LibDem and Labour vote share?
> @brokenwheel said: > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
> The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true.
Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
If there had been no polling during the campaign at all I think I'd be guessing low twenties for both a likely and a respectable score the Brexit Party.
> We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous.
We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time.
> @ydoethur said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > > > > I wouldn't have said Wilson left on a 'high.' He left without actually being forced out by his party, which is ever so slightly different. But he hadn't had a 'high' since about 1968. > > > > > > > I think out-foxing the Tories in the 1972 elections was a high. > > Really? Didn't know he outfoxed them in elections in 1972. > > 1974, now, he did OK there and he just about managed to push them out. But it wasn't a 'high.' It left him in much the position May has been in for two years, and he achieved about as much.
Wilson's fortunes were certainly not on a 'high' in 1968 - indeed that was the nadir of his time in office. The Tories were over 25% ahead in the polls, winning by elections on massive swings, and at the Local Elections won places such as Norwich , Sheffield and the London Boroughs of Lambeth , Hackney,Islington and pretty well everywhere else!
> @another_richard said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > > > There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014. > > ' The 2014 United Kingdom local elections were held on 22 May 2014. Usually these elections are held on the first Thursday in May but were postponed to coincide with the 2014 European Parliament Elections. Direct elections were held for all 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 74 district/borough councils, 20 unitary authorities and various mayoral posts in England and elections to the new councils in Northern Ireland. ' > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Oops, stand corrected. I should know that, since I was up for re-election myself that day. A heroic defence of my ward given the political challenges the LibDems faced at the time.
> @brokenwheel said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > > > Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous. > > We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time.
Your argument might have some validity if the places where there were local elections in 2014 were predominantly "Kippy." Is that what you're arguing? If so, we need data to back it up, given that the London boroughs voted then.
> @Recidivist said: > > @isam said: > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning? > > I know what it shows and it shows what I said. > > Yes it does. There are similar graphs for areas strong for the other parties, which show that areas that have strong Lib Dem and Green votes are up more than UKIP ones, which is the actual point of the story. > > It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas.
No-one's suggesting that BXP hasn't won, are they? That would be ridiculous. The issue, surely, is the margin of victory and whether we discover the minority in favour of a No Deal Brexit might be bigger than previously thought.
> > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
> Try to think for a few moments in a row.
> You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
> If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
>
> I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant.
On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really.
Oooh a betting site!!
Where all the high rollers hang out I suppose?
I'm in awe!!
Even if I were a betting muggerroooni, there was no need to be so pompous, we cant all be at the top of the game!
The graph exaggerates the "bad news" for Leave, and doesnt take into account the fact there are many, many more leave areas than Remain
> > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
> Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
> You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
> If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
I think we can be fairly sure that loads of people who voted Brexit party will want a deal based Brexit. With Labour and Tories incapable of having a position voting Brexit party was the nearest way without equivocating to vote in favour of a having Brexit actually happen. It would be nice if there was a clearly 'Moderate phased sensible long term plan Brexit Party' but there isn't. TMs attempt to start one didn't do all that well, and Richard North, while an interesting man, is not a party.
> @Paristonda said: > > @Paristonda said: > > > > > > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better. > > > > Massive rewriting of recent history. > > > > Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears). > > > > And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful. > > > > Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter. > > Of course Iraq was a huge cockup but it's not what drove him out, he still won an election after that (albeit he got lucky there winning on 35% of the vote). Cameron resigned a year after winning a majority for his party because of the referendum, much more directly linked. Blair was pushed out, but after 10 years in office he knew he was at the end of his political life expectancy anyway.
But Labour won the 2005 election on 36 % of the GB vote inspite of Blair - rather than because of him. Brown would probably have managed a bigger majority that year.
> @SouthamObserver said: > > @Recidivist said: > > > @isam said: > > > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > > > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning? > > > > I know what it shows and it shows what I said. > > > > Yes it does. There are similar graphs for areas strong for the other parties, which show that areas that have strong Lib Dem and Green votes are up more than UKIP ones, which is the actual point of the story. > > > > It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas. > > No-one's suggesting that BXP hasn't won, are they? That would be ridiculous. The issue, surely, is the margin of victory and whether we discover the minority in favour of a No Deal Brexit might be bigger than previously thought.
Given that some of the polls showed the Brexit Party leading by only a few points, and given the low turnout, I don't think it would be safe to assume it has won, or if so that it has won by a large margin.
> @Chris said: > > @Recidivist said: > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true. > > Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling. > > Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
The Conservatives, DUP, UKIP, and a variety of pro-Brexit micro parties won 53% in 2014. These turnout numbers suggest to me that that percentage could be down to 48 - 49% this time, but TBP will win a bigger share of that vote than UKIP did in 2014.
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > > @isam said: > > > > > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%? > > > > Try to think for a few moments in a row. > > > > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average. > > > > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear. > > > > > > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning? > > > > > > I know what it shows and it shows what I said. > > > > It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant. > > > > On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really. > > Oooh a betting site!! > > Where all the high rollers hang out I suppose? > > I'm in awe!! > > Even if I were a betting muggerroooni, there was no need to be so pompous, we cant all be at the top of the game! > > The graph exaggerates the "bad news" for Leave, and doesnt take into account the fact there are many, many more leave areas than Remain
I think accusing people of being "pompous" just because they don't share your rather wild assumptions is a bit feeble. That kind of thing always makes me think you must be a bit short of more substantive arguments.
As for "many, many more leave areas than Remain," given that the referendum result was 52-48, it's perhaps an even more stupid remark than the one we started with. Obviously we're looking at changes from previous votes, and in particular from the UKIP vote in 2014 - which, let's remember, was 26.6%, on a turnout of 35.6%.
> @dixiedean said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > @Paristonda said: > > > > > > > > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better. > > > > > > Massive rewriting of recent history. > > > > > > Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears). > > > > > > And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful. > > > > > > Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter. > > > > The Iraq war was a cockup. But it didn't do for Blair. He won another election after that. It didn't fatally undermine his authority in the country or the party. It should have, but it didn't. > > I think that is because although Iraq was a cock up, the full scale of it took time to be revealed. The initial invasion was far swifter and less bloody than many had predicted beforehand. Saddam was toppled. The Iraqi army didn't fight hard. > It was the slow drip, drip of anarchy, atrocity, and chaos which followed that did for it. The failure to get a stable government, the lack of any exit route, the non existence of any WMD, and the revelation of a complete and utter absence of any post-conflict planning. > That took a few years to dawn. > So it fatally undermined his legacy. > If it weren't for Iraq, I reckon we would look back and see Blair as a political Titan.
I despise Blair more than Thatcher and see him as a war criminal fully deserving to be hauled up before the Hague International Criminal Court and then serving 20 years in prison. Having read the entire transcripts of the 1945/46 Nuremberg Trials , I consider him to be more guilty of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War' in the sense of 'willing the war' than any of the Nazi leaders arraigned there - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
> @HYUFD said: > Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party
> > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
>
> > Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
>
> > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
>
> > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
&.
> It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant.
> On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really.
>
> Oooh a betting site!!
>
> Where all the high rollers hang out I suppose?
>
> I'm in awe!!
>
> Even if I were a betting muggerroooni, there was no need to be so pompous, we cant all be at the top of the game!
>
> The graph exaggerates the "bad news" for Leave, and doesnt take into account the fact there are many, many more leave areas than Remain
I think accusing people of being "pompous" just because they don't share your rather wild assumptions is a bit feeble. That kind of thing always makes me think you must be a bit short of more substantive arguments.
As for "many, many more leave areas than Remain," given that the referendum result was 52-48, it's perhaps an even more stupid remark than the one we started with. Obviously we're looking at changes from previous votes, and in particular from the UKIP vote in 2014 - which, let's remember, was 26.6%, on a turnout of 35.6%.
Haha! Tone down that pomposity!
What was the split in constituencies between Leave and Remain at the referendum?
Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
> @Sean_F said: > > @Chris said: > > > @Recidivist said: > > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136 > > > > > > > > > > > > The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true. > > > > Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling. > > > > Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow. > > The Conservatives, DUP, UKIP, and a variety of pro-Brexit micro parties won 53% in 2014. These turnout numbers suggest to me that that percentage could be down to 48 - 49% this time, but TBP will win a bigger share of that vote than UKIP did in 2014.
Obviously, the Conservatives weren't a "pro-Brexit party" in 2014.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @rottenborough said: > > https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352 > > > > Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!! > > Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
I'm not sure the members need be indignant - if their MP won't back their party leader for PM, they can hardly campaign under the party banner in a GE.
If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
> @SouthamObserver said: > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
> But would the LibDems actually benefit from CUK support?
I think it would make sense for the LD to stand aside in, say, current ChUK seats and then half a dozen more (ChUK has to pretend to have targets).
Even if it adds 3% to the LD vote elsewhere, that surely is worth it.
They could get some good PR out of it by having a protracted on again off again set of talks. Build the narrative that there is something worth having to haggle over. And if the Lib Dems ultimately 'won' the debate it would boost them a bit. Basically if you are the third party your biggest struggle is getting covered at all, so do the best to make the hookup into an interesting story.
> If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
People have been constructing elaborate ways to do down a Brexit Party victory on here for so long, they cannot possibly win now. In the general public of course, Farage grinning all over the papers after getting the most votes is all that will matter.
It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @rottenborough said: > > https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352 > > > > Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!! > > Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
Once the first VONC is lost, there’s a maximum of two weeks for a VOC to be won, otherwise Parliament is dissolved under the FTPA.
> @IanB2 said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
Yes there were - and were held on 22nd May that year.
> @isam said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do. > > > > Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much. > > People have been constructing elaborate ways to do down a Brexit Party victory on here for so long, they cannot possibly win now. In the general public of course, Farage grinning all over the papers after getting the most votes is all that will matter. > > It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though.
Most unambiguous way of doing that is to have a referendum. Odd how many of those in favour of No Deal are also those most vociferously against letting the people decide.
> @brokenwheel said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > > > Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous. > > We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time.
Your argument might have some validity if the places where there were local elections in 2014 were predominantly "Kippy." Is that what you're arguing? If so, we need data to back it up, given that the London boroughs voted then.
No, that's not what i'm arguing, as I said i'm purely talking about the UKIP vote. What I said was that the Kippy places where turnout dropped most had local elections in 2014, making the trend look more severe than it is. Even though they've dropped they're probably well above what they should be given there's no locals this time. I should imagine people still motivated to turnout despite there being no locals to be fairly Kippy here.
Almost all the places where turnout has dropped had local elections in 2014, which given most areas did not have elections then suggests it may be a factor in these places. Kippy places that did not have local elections in 2014 like South Holland have seen (small) increases in turnout this year.
In fact on the list of turnouts only a couple of places in the red didn't have local elections, and even then they're not particularly Kippy like Suffolk Coastal.
> > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
>
>
>
> Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
>
> People have been constructing elaborate ways to do down a Brexit Party victory on here for so long, they cannot possibly win now. In the general public of course, Farage grinning all over the papers after getting the most votes is all that will matter.
>
> It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though.
Most unambiguous way of doing that is to have a referendum.
Odd how many of those in favour of No Deal are also those most vociferously against letting the people decide.
> @SouthamObserver said: > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
Maybe, though the idea that a big Brexit Party victory should make the Tories commit themselves to No Deal is pretty stupid anyway, given the likely after-effects. But perhaps the party has sufficiently lost contact with reality to make it appealing.
I'd have thought the main practical result of this vote -if the polls are anything to go by - would be that neither of the main parties would want to risk a general election before Brexit is resolved. Meaning that we are stuck with the present House of Commons until the October deadline.
> @MaxPB said: > I’ve been busy this morning, are there any more entrants for the Downing Street beauty pageant? > > Larry the cat has been installed as third favourite ahead of Matt Hancock.
> @justin124 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party > > Hopefully he now faces expulsion from the party.
Is it really in the rules that you can't admit voting for a different party after the fact? If so, draconian.
> @TheWhiteRabbit said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do. > > Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much. > >
If BXP get 31% my guess is that it might give a few Tory MPs pause for thought about backing a candidate vowing to press ahead with a No Deal Brexit.
> @justin124 said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > @Paristonda said: > > > > > > > > > > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better. > > > > > > > > Massive rewriting of recent history. > > > > > > > > Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears). > > > > > > > > And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful. > > > > > > > > Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter. > > > > > > The Iraq war was a cockup. But it didn't do for Blair. He won another election after that. It didn't fatally undermine his authority in the country or the party. It should have, but it didn't. > > > > I think that is because although Iraq was a cock up, the full scale of it took time to be revealed. The initial invasion was far swifter and less bloody than many had predicted beforehand. Saddam was toppled. The Iraqi army didn't fight hard. > > It was the slow drip, drip of anarchy, atrocity, and chaos which followed that did for it. The failure to get a stable government, the lack of any exit route, the non existence of any WMD, and the revelation of a complete and utter absence of any post-conflict planning. > > That took a few years to dawn. > > So it fatally undermined his legacy. > > If it weren't for Iraq, I reckon we would look back and see Blair as a political Titan. > > I despise Blair more than Thatcher and see him as a war criminal fully deserving to be hauled up before the Hague International Criminal Court and then serving 20 years in prison. Having read the entire transcripts of the 1945/46 Nuremberg Trials , I consider him to be more guilty of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War' in the sense of 'willing the war' than any of the Nazi leaders arraigned there - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Meanwhile, John Bolton swans around the world looking for a repeat in Iran/Venezuela/N Korea....
> @brokenwheel said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world. > > > > > > > > Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous. > > > > We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time. > > Your argument might have some validity if the places where there were local elections in 2014 were predominantly "Kippy." Is that what you're arguing? If so, we need data to back it up, given that the London boroughs voted then. > > No, that's not what i'm arguing, as I said i'm purely talking about the UKIP vote. What I said was that the Kippy places where turnout dropped most had local elections in 2014, making the trend look more severe than it is. Even though they've dropped they're probably well above what they should be given there's no locals this time. I should imagine people still motivated to turnout despite there being no locals to be fairly Kippy here. > > Almost all the places where turnout has dropped had local elections in 2014, which given most areas did not have elections then suggests it may be a factor in these places. Kippy places that did not have local elections in 2014 like South Holland have seen (small) increases in turnout this year. > > In fact on the list of turnouts only a couple of places in the red didn't have local elections, and even then they're not particularly Kippy like Suffolk Coastal.
Unless you're saying that there's a correlation between UKIP performance and the fact of having local elections in 2014 - which it doesn't sound as though you are, though I'm still not sure - then I can't see what you're getting at.
> @ah009 said: > > @MaxPB said: > > I’ve been busy this morning, are there any more entrants for the Downing Street beauty pageant? > > > > Larry the cat has been installed as third favourite ahead of Matt Hancock. > > > @justin124 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party > > > > Hopefully he now faces expulsion from the party. > > Is it really in the rules that you can't admit voting for a different party after the fact? If so, draconian.
People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules.
You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them?
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > Deal vs No Deal? I’m up for it! > > > > You said "It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though" > > > > It's not like a Brexiter to change the the terms after the fact... > > I didn’t say I wanted a referendum beteeen revoke and No deal did I?
No, I did. You were interested in the Revoke v No Deal numbers. It's ok if you want to switch away from an awkward topic though. I can fully understand why you'd want to.
I understand on Tuesday London hospitals will put on alert as the swim suit parade along Downing Street will take place at 7:00pm.
In particular grave concern has been raised as speculation mounts that Boris Johnson will opt for a budgie smuggler thong emblazoned with the union flag. Chief Medical Officer for London, Sir Ponsonby Hack-Nutjob stated :
"Whilst the new 1922 Committee ruling on complete leadership transparency is to be welcomed, we fail to see the requirement for this gratuitous display of flesh that will unsettle the populace and especially the feeble minded. The latter being significantly over represented by the voting members of Conservative MP's."
Ruthie now in hiding, lying comes naturally. One good thrashing and she would not come back for a second one.
Ruth there was an election in @ScotParl. We both voted. You got 15 votes and Nicola got 66. 18 months later there was a #Holyrood election - you lost just as the Tories have lost every #Holyrood election. You then decided not to stand for FM in the subsequent @ScotParl vote.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Sean_F said: > > Sutton now comes in at 46.8%, up 3.5%, one of the London Boroughs that voted Leave. > > Sutton is now >55% Remain based on the recent MRP analysis.
And the Australian Labour Party are still celebrating their election victory one week on after more than 50 polls in a row said they were going to win!
Of course in this country polls are now incredibly fluid - it was only a few weeks ago Labour and the Tories were scoring nearly 80% combined and on some polls are now below 50 per cent.
I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule. I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted.
Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views.
> @solarflare said: > > @Nigelb said: > > Ferrari incompetence dumps Leclerc out in Q1. > > > > Pathetic. > > > > Made even funnier by it being Vettel the one who knocked him out
> @Nigelb said: > > @solarflare said: > > > @Nigelb said: > > > Ferrari incompetence dumps Leclerc out in Q1. > > > > > > Pathetic. > > > > > > > Made even funnier by it being Vettel the one who knocked him out > > Not if you’re Leclerc... > >
Well, true. And I do like Leclerc. But I also enjoy Ferrari getting themselves tied up in all sorts of knots.
> @ah009 said: > > Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views. >
I would have said there was a difference between, in the privacy of the booth or envelope, voting another way.
And advertising on Radio 4 or twitter that you voted another way. There was no need for Campbell to tell us. And it is hardly as if he is so innocent in the dark arts as not to know the effect.
It would seem to me to warrant shoving Campbell out of the party.
Comments
Would be bad news from Labour mind you as the Con party would poll single figures in the next GE.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
>
> > Perspective.
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years.
>
>
>
> "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
>
> Doesn't alter the fact that the Home Office is an abomination.
John Reid said it wasn't 'fit for purpose' back in 2006.
The justified criticism of May as Home Secretary is the lack of improvement in her department.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the ONS shows that 2017 had visitors in the UK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You should have checked the data before having your rant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make.
> > > > >
> > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending.
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA
> > > > >
> > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are.
> > > > >
> > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018.
> > > >
> > > > A rant :-D
> > > >
> > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? "
> > >
> > > Yes, a rant.
> > >
> > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ?
> >
> > You clearly don’t have the ability to differentiate between a rant and an observation. And why would people spending money in the UK disappoint me? I’d like them to spend more, not less. That’s why it’s such a shame that last year we saw a significant dip after so many years of growth.
>
> A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record.
>
> The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'.
>
> Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website:
>
> https://www.ons.gov.uk/
That's pretty much like saying you'll find it at google.com.
Where exactly?
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But the ONS sho
> > > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018.
> > > > >
> > > > > A rant :-D
> > > > >
> > > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? "
> > > >
> > > > Yes, a rant.
> > > >
> > > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ?
> > >
> > > You clearly don’t have the ability to differentiate between a rant and an observation. And why would people spending money in the UK disappoint me? I’d like them to spend more, not less. That’s why it’s such a shame that last year we saw a significant dip after so many years of growth.
> >
> > A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record.
> >
> > The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'.
> >
> > Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website:
> >
> > https://www.ons.gov.uk/
>
> As I say, I’m sorry you do not understand.
"I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Maybe next time you want to argue against fascist rhetoric you might lead with a moral argument rather than a dubious link to a slight decline in tourism?
> In other news, there's been a stabbing overnight in my <strike>large village</strike> small town. In the last two years, that's one machete attack near my son's school, one murder in a household, one outside a pub, and it looks like last night a 15 year old stabbed an 18 year old outside the pub.
>
> An epidemic in our locality, or part of a wider trend?
>
> (I hasten to add I'm happy here, and like the place.)
Based on what I've read recently, my guess would be that the risk of falling victim to violent crime is still in decline in most of the country, outside of larger urban centres where the drug gangs are based.
No evidence of the knife crime epidemic in this small town, insofar as I am aware. Long may this continue to be the case.
> Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
>
>
> It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
Try to think for a few moments in a row.
You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > Perspective.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856
>
> I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years.
>
> "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
I am also very wary of these stories. So many in the Guardian, when the full story is revealed there is a lot more going on.
Its the inverse of the Daily Mail stories where the headline says some criminal got off with a slap on the wrist because they gave some crazy sob story. Normally the sob story bit is just the lawyer doing their job and the sentence is either in line with guidelines or that the criminal has already served time a significant amount of time behind bars leading up to the trial, and the the dog eat my homework story is irrelevant to the length of the sentence.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
> Brexit supporters are not only stupid but lazy. Good news.
Very much like all the Brexit opponents who didn't bother to turn out to vote three years ago. Which is why they find themselves in this desperate situation in the first place.
I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!!
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > Perspective.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/MuldoonBarbara/status/1131912846433017856
>
> I'm sure any lawyer could come up with sob stories about their clients under any Home Secretary over the past 200 years.
>
> "Just not up to it" is all one needs to say about Theresa May, rather than accusing her of murdering people, as several people on that thread are doing.
I daresay, but perhaps these 'sob stories' are a necessary corrective to an over priveleged, under talented woman being removed from a position that she was desperate to put herself forward for being turned into a massive sob story.
Do you think May was up to constructing the hostile environment that caused these sob stories, or do you feel she just didn't ramp up the miserable xenophobia quite enough?
> It is possible that many BP likely voters thought lazily that no need as clear Farage will win anyway.
The lack of any positive message from Farage would have deterred some potential voters.
There's a limit to protest votes if there isn't a clear end product.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is exactly what you're saying.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You said 'crush the saboteurs' created an immensely negative impression of the UK.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But the ONS sho
> > > > > > > > > Now stop digging yourself a deeper hole and learn from the experience
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My experience is that you do not understand the point I am making - I am sorry that is the case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me guess what point you were trying to make.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You read a headline which fitted in with your views and prejudices ie that Brexit is damaging the image of the UK in foreign countries.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You then had a rant that this was leading to a fall in foreign tourists and their spending.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BUT YOU DIDN'T CHECK THE DATA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you didn't do that because its always much easier to assume your own views and prejudices are right than to do a few minutes work finding things out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem with that is sometimes the facts are different to what you assume they are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As they are in in the UK were 2017 and 2018.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A rant :-D
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I said something you did not like. The numbers fell in 2018. Despite the pound’s weakness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > " Turns out that if you spend all your time telling foreigners you don’t like them it puts quite a few off from spending their time and money with you. Whoever would have thought it? "
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, a rant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Were you disappointed to be informed that the two highest years for foreign visitors to the UK and highest levels of spending by foreign visitors to the UK were 2017 and 2018 ?
> > > >
> > > > You clearly don’t have the ability of growth.
> > >
> > > A 'significant dip' to the second highest on record.
> > >
> > > The record year being the year of 'crush the saboteurs' which you claimed created 'an immensely negative impression of the UK'.
> > >
> > > Check the data next time - you'll find it at this website:
> > >
> > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/
> >
> > As I say, I’m sorry you do not understand.
>
> "I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
>
> Maybe next time you want to argue against fascist rhetoric you might lead with a moral argument rather than a dubious link to a slight decline in tourism?
Rightyo
> > @isam said:
>
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
>
>
> Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
>
>
> You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
>
>
> If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
>
> I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant.
On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really.
> It is possible that many BP likely voters thought lazily that no need as clear Farage will win anyway.
Just like the 2016 referendum itself in reverse, if true.
Always thought that the hyper-enraged faction of the pro-EU youth vote, who've spent the whole of the last three years slagging off old people for supposedly robbing them of their futures, are merely looking for someone else to take the blame for their own indolence.
> > @isam said:
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> >
> >
> >
> > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
> Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
> You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
> If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
> > @Chris said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
> >
> > Try to think for a few moments in a row.
> >
> > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
> >
> > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
If the Brexit Party win 31% that would likely still be a plurality even if not a majority
It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas.
> > @Chris said:
> > > @isam said:
> > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
> >
> > Try to think for a few moments in a row.
> >
> > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
> >
> > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> Yes this indicates David H may be correct in his suggestion above that TBP may end up nearer to 31% than the 37% touted in outlier polls. Even allowing for differential turnout there is no plurality for hard Brexit in the UK. That is why compromise is still essential if any form of Brexit is to be delivered.
When you can win a GE outright on 35% or even less of the vote there’s no need to govern for a majority.
> We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
> The one thing that endears Boris to me is that he is the only British politician to hold high office who has ever done anything positive for cycling - the construction of the Superhighways. (Sadiq Khan has been an absolute flop in this area.) If he were to roll this out nationwide then I might even vote for him...
Yes. Though to give credit where it's due a lot of that is down to the work of the Cycling Commissioner he appointed, Andrew Gilligan, who took the monomania that he had applied in journalism in attacking Ken Livingstone to pushing through cycling infrastructure in the face of opposition.
Johnson deserves credit for appointing the right person to the job, and backing him where necessary, but it was Gilligan who was the real revelation. It would be a cheering moment if PM Johnson were to make Gilligan a Lord and Minister for Cycling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections
> Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
>
>
> The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true.
Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
> Based on a vote share of: Lab 28, Brexit 25%, Lib Dem 18%, Con 14%, Green 4%, SNP 4%, Change UK 3%, UKIP 2%, Plaid 1%, Others 1%, UK-Elect projects: Lab 303, Brexit 210, Lib Dem 57, SNP 54, Plaid 5, Green 1, Ind 1, Speaker 1. Based on your assessment of the situation, I think a Lab / SNP coalition (which would become a Lab majority government post independence) is the most likely option. Note no Con MP's elected.
Brexit Party plus Tories have a majority in England on the latest Opinium
> > @brokenwheel said:
> > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
>
> There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
' The 2014 United Kingdom local elections were held on 22 May 2014. Usually these elections are held on the first Thursday in May but were postponed to coincide with the 2014 European Parliament Elections. Direct elections were held for all 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 74 district/borough councils, 20 unitary authorities and various mayoral posts in England and elections to the new councils in Northern Ireland. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections
> We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous.
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> >
>
> > I wouldn't have said Wilson left on a 'high.' He left without actually being forced out by his party, which is ever so slightly different. But he hadn't had a 'high' since about 1968.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I think out-foxing the Tories in the 1972 elections was a high.
>
> Really? Didn't know he outfoxed them in elections in 1972.
>
> 1974, now, he did OK there and he just about managed to push them out. But it wasn't a 'high.' It left him in much the position May has been in for two years, and he achieved about as much.
Wilson's fortunes were certainly not on a 'high' in 1968 - indeed that was the nadir of his time in office. The Tories were over 25% ahead in the polls, winning by elections on massive swings, and at the Local Elections won places such as Norwich , Sheffield and the London Boroughs of Lambeth , Hackney,Islington and pretty well everywhere else!
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @brokenwheel said:
> > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
> >
> > There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
>
> ' The 2014 United Kingdom local elections were held on 22 May 2014. Usually these elections are held on the first Thursday in May but were postponed to coincide with the 2014 European Parliament Elections. Direct elections were held for all 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 74 district/borough councils, 20 unitary authorities and various mayoral posts in England and elections to the new councils in Northern Ireland. '
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Oops, stand corrected. I should know that, since I was up for re-election myself that day. A heroic defence of my ward given the political challenges the LibDems faced at the time.
> > @brokenwheel said:
>
> > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
>
>
>
> Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous.
>
> We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time.
Your argument might have some validity if the places where there were local elections in 2014 were predominantly "Kippy." Is that what you're arguing? If so, we need data to back it up, given that the London boroughs voted then.
> > @isam said:
>
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
>
>
> Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
>
>
> You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
>
>
> If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
>
> I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
>
> Yes it does. There are similar graphs for areas strong for the other parties, which show that areas that have strong Lib Dem and Green votes are up more than UKIP ones, which is the actual point of the story.
>
> It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas.
No-one's suggesting that BXP hasn't won, are they? That would be ridiculous. The issue, surely, is the margin of victory and whether we discover the minority in favour of a No Deal Brexit might be bigger than previously thought.
Where all the high rollers hang out I suppose?
I'm in awe!!
Even if I were a betting muggerroooni, there was no need to be so pompous, we cant all be at the top of the game!
The graph exaggerates the "bad news" for Leave, and doesnt take into account the fact there are many, many more leave areas than Remain
> > @Paristonda said:
>
> >
>
> > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better.
>
>
>
> Massive rewriting of recent history.
>
>
>
> Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears).
>
>
>
> And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful.
>
>
>
> Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter.
>
> Of course Iraq was a huge cockup but it's not what drove him out, he still won an election after that (albeit he got lucky there winning on 35% of the vote). Cameron resigned a year after winning a majority for his party because of the referendum, much more directly linked. Blair was pushed out, but after 10 years in office he knew he was at the end of his political life expectancy anyway.
But Labour won the 2005 election on 36 % of the GB vote inspite of Blair - rather than because of him. Brown would probably have managed a bigger majority that year.
> > @Recidivist said:
> > > @isam said:
> >
> > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
> >
> >
> >
> > Try to think for a few moments in a row.
> >
> >
> >
> > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
> >
> >
> >
> > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
> >
> > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
> >
> > I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
> >
> > Yes it does. There are similar graphs for areas strong for the other parties, which show that areas that have strong Lib Dem and Green votes are up more than UKIP ones, which is the actual point of the story.
> >
> > It seems to me that the only thing going for this analysis is that it is the only thing you can do with the turnout data that gives any indication about who has won - though you need some pretty heroic assumptions to draw any conclusions from it. It is probably just indicating that when turnout changes overall it does so more in more affluent areas.
>
> No-one's suggesting that BXP hasn't won, are they? That would be ridiculous. The issue, surely, is the margin of victory and whether we discover the minority in favour of a No Deal Brexit might be bigger than previously thought.
Given that some of the polls showed the Brexit Party leading by only a few points, and given the low turnout, I don't think it would be safe to assume it has won, or if so that it has won by a large margin.
> > @Recidivist said:
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> >
> >
> >
> > The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true.
>
> Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
>
> Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
The Conservatives, DUP, UKIP, and a variety of pro-Brexit micro parties won 53% in 2014. These turnout numbers suggest to me that that percentage could be down to 48 - 49% this time, but TBP will win a bigger share of that vote than UKIP did in 2014.
> > @isam said:
>
> > > @isam said:
>
> >
>
> > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
>
> > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
>
>
>
> > > It’s up in all the best UKIP areas except the one it did best in, which is down 1%?
>
>
> > Try to think for a few moments in a row.
>
>
> > You know turnout was up on average. What that graph shows is that it's up more than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was below average before, and up less than average in all the deciles in which the UKIP vote was above average.
>
>
> > If only people could overcome their phobia of maths - or perhaps I should say of arithmetic - they wouldn't find things as hard to understand as they fear.
>
> >
>
> > Was the pomposity on toast nice this morning?
>
> >
>
> > I know what it shows and it shows what I said.
>
>
>
> It's just that what you said was so stupidly irrelevant.
>
>
>
> On a betting site, when someone says something stupidly irrelevant, pointing it out isn't pompous. More of a public duty, really.
>
> Oooh a betting site!!
>
> Where all the high rollers hang out I suppose?
>
> I'm in awe!!
>
> Even if I were a betting muggerroooni, there was no need to be so pompous, we cant all be at the top of the game!
>
> The graph exaggerates the "bad news" for Leave, and doesnt take into account the fact there are many, many more leave areas than Remain
I think accusing people of being "pompous" just because they don't share your rather wild assumptions is a bit feeble. That kind of thing always makes me think you must be a bit short of more substantive arguments.
As for "many, many more leave areas than Remain," given that the referendum result was 52-48, it's perhaps an even more stupid remark than the one we started with. Obviously we're looking at changes from previous votes, and in particular from the UKIP vote in 2014 - which, let's remember, was 26.6%, on a turnout of 35.6%.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > > > @Paristonda said:
> > > >
> > > > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better.
> > >
> > > Massive rewriting of recent history.
> > >
> > > Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears).
> > >
> > > And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful.
> > >
> > > Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter.
> >
> > The Iraq war was a cockup. But it didn't do for Blair. He won another election after that. It didn't fatally undermine his authority in the country or the party. It should have, but it didn't.
>
> I think that is because although Iraq was a cock up, the full scale of it took time to be revealed. The initial invasion was far swifter and less bloody than many had predicted beforehand. Saddam was toppled. The Iraqi army didn't fight hard.
> It was the slow drip, drip of anarchy, atrocity, and chaos which followed that did for it. The failure to get a stable government, the lack of any exit route, the non existence of any WMD, and the revelation of a complete and utter absence of any post-conflict planning.
> That took a few years to dawn.
> So it fatally undermined his legacy.
> If it weren't for Iraq, I reckon we would look back and see Blair as a political Titan.
I despise Blair more than Thatcher and see him as a war criminal fully deserving to be hauled up before the Hague International Criminal Court and then serving 20 years in prison. Having read the entire transcripts of the 1945/46 Nuremberg Trials , I consider him to be more guilty of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War' in the sense of 'willing the war' than any of the Nazi leaders arraigned there - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
> https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352?s=20
If it ends up causing a GE, presumably the local associations of the MPs causing it will need to move very quickly to find new candidates.
> Sutton now comes in at 46.8%, up 3.5%, one of the London Boroughs that voted Leave.
Sutton is now >55% Remain based on the recent MRP analysis.
> Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party
Hopefully he now faces expulsion from the party.
> Sutton now comes in at 46.8%, up 3.5%, one of the London Boroughs that voted Leave.
The increase is below-average, in other words.
To repeat - if overall turnout is up, we need to look at changes in turnout relative to the average - not absolute changes in turnout.
What was the split in constituencies between Leave and Remain at the referendum?
...and whats your spread on UKIP+BXP vote%?
> https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352
>
> Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!!
Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
> > @Chris said:
> > > @Recidivist said:
> > > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The effect may be real, but those are tiny changes. There may not be much in this turnout story even if it is true.
> >
> > Nowhere near as large as the numbers someone posted yesterday, which would have indicated perhaps a halving of the pro-Brexit vote share, but perhaps enough to indicate a 3-4 point decline in the pro-Brexit vote since last time - perhaps putting the Brexit party in the low 20s. If true, a world away from some of the near-40% polling.
> >
> > Obviously we'll see what happens tomorrow.
>
> The Conservatives, DUP, UKIP, and a variety of pro-Brexit micro parties won 53% in 2014. These turnout numbers suggest to me that that percentage could be down to 48 - 49% this time, but TBP will win a bigger share of that vote than UKIP did in 2014.
Obviously, the Conservatives weren't a "pro-Brexit party" in 2014.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352
> >
> > Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!!
>
> Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
I'm not sure the members need be indignant - if their MP won't back their party leader for PM, they can hardly campaign under the party banner in a GE.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/25/change-uk-could-form-pro-remain-pact-with-liberal-democrats
But would the LibDems actually benefit from CUK support?
> Interesting story.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/25/change-uk-could-form-pro-remain-pact-with-liberal-democrats
>
> But would the LibDems actually benefit from CUK support?
I think it would make sense for the LD to stand aside in, say, current ChUK seats and then half a dozen more (ChUK has to pretend to have targets).
Even if it adds 3% to the LD vote elsewhere, that surely is worth it.
> If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1132233967900516352
> >
> > Blimey. Maybe the real fun hasn't even started!!!!
>
> Yes, it's a good question. Presumably what would happen is that there wouldbe a number of VONCs for various alternatives, and when they all failed a GE would follow, with the dissident MPs deselected by their indignant members and standing for new parties. Rinse and repeat until you get a majority in favour of something...
Once the first VONC is lost, there’s a maximum of two weeks for a VOC to be won, otherwise Parliament is dissolved under the FTPA.
> > @brokenwheel said:
> > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
>
> There weren’t any local elections at the end of May in 2014.
Yes there were - and were held on 22nd May that year.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
>
> > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
>
>
>
> Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
>
> People have been constructing elaborate ways to do down a Brexit Party victory on here for so long, they cannot possibly win now. In the general public of course, Farage grinning all over the papers after getting the most votes is all that will matter.
>
> It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though.
Most unambiguous way of doing that is to have a referendum.
Odd how many of those in favour of No Deal are also those most vociferously against letting the people decide.
Almost all the places where turnout has dropped had local elections in 2014, which given most areas did not have elections then suggests it may be a factor in these places. Kippy places that did not have local elections in 2014 like South Holland have seen (small) increases in turnout this year.
In fact on the list of turnouts only a couple of places in the red didn't have local elections, and even then they're not particularly Kippy like Suffolk Coastal.
> Deal vs No Deal? I’m up for it!
You said "It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though"
It's not like a Brexiter to change the the terms after the fact...
> If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
Maybe, though the idea that a big Brexit Party victory should make the Tories commit themselves to No Deal is pretty stupid anyway, given the likely after-effects. But perhaps the party has sufficiently lost contact with reality to make it appealing.
I'd have thought the main practical result of this vote -if the polls are anything to go by - would be that neither of the main parties would want to risk a general election before Brexit is resolved. Meaning that we are stuck with the present House of Commons until the October deadline.
> I’ve been busy this morning, are there any more entrants for the Downing Street beauty pageant?
>
> Larry the cat has been installed as third favourite ahead of Matt Hancock.
> @justin124 said:
> > @HYUFD said:
> > Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party
>
> Hopefully he now faces expulsion from the party.
Is it really in the rules that you can't admit voting for a different party after the fact? If so, draconian.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > If - big if - the Brexit party has not stormed to a big vote lead that is going to change the underlying narrative of the Tory leadership contest pretty significantly I'd have thought - or, at least, it should do.
>
> Truth be told, a BXP victory of, say 31% to Lab 25/LD 23 (or vice versa) would not notable for the undershoot, but the victory still counts. Maybe in Westminster it would feel like an nonperformance, but in the country, not so much.
>
>
If BXP get 31% my guess is that it might give a few Tory MPs pause for thought about backing a candidate vowing to press ahead with a No Deal Brexit.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > > > > @Paristonda said:
> > > > >
> > > > > Blair left on as close to a high as you can realistically get - wasn't openly forced out like May or Thatcher, never lost a GE, didn't leave because of his own cockup like Cameron. Can't get much better.
> > > >
> > > > Massive rewriting of recent history.
> > > >
> > > > Blair was forced out (much like May, in fact, but without the tears).
> > > >
> > > > And I think by any objective definition, the Iraq War was a much greater cockup than the Referendum. And much. much more shameful.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you think the deaths of arabs don't matter.
> > >
> > > The Iraq war was a cockup. But it didn't do for Blair. He won another election after that. It didn't fatally undermine his authority in the country or the party. It should have, but it didn't.
> >
> > I think that is because although Iraq was a cock up, the full scale of it took time to be revealed. The initial invasion was far swifter and less bloody than many had predicted beforehand. Saddam was toppled. The Iraqi army didn't fight hard.
> > It was the slow drip, drip of anarchy, atrocity, and chaos which followed that did for it. The failure to get a stable government, the lack of any exit route, the non existence of any WMD, and the revelation of a complete and utter absence of any post-conflict planning.
> > That took a few years to dawn.
> > So it fatally undermined his legacy.
> > If it weren't for Iraq, I reckon we would look back and see Blair as a political Titan.
>
> I despise Blair more than Thatcher and see him as a war criminal fully deserving to be hauled up before the Hague International Criminal Court and then serving 20 years in prison. Having read the entire transcripts of the 1945/46 Nuremberg Trials , I consider him to be more guilty of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War' in the sense of 'willing the war' than any of the Nazi leaders arraigned there - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
Meanwhile, John Bolton swans around the world looking for a repeat in Iran/Venezuela/N Korea....
> > @brokenwheel said:
> > > @brokenwheel said:
> >
> > > We are of course forgetting that most of these Kippy areas that are showing drops in turnout just happened to be the places where there were local elections in 2014. So to be only a few points down may not be the end of the world.
> >
> >
> >
> > Right. Like the London boroughs? Hilarous.
> >
> > We are talking about the UKIP vote. Yes, London turnouts are obviously doing very well considering they had local elections last time.
>
> Your argument might have some validity if the places where there were local elections in 2014 were predominantly "Kippy." Is that what you're arguing? If so, we need data to back it up, given that the London boroughs voted then.
>
> No, that's not what i'm arguing, as I said i'm purely talking about the UKIP vote. What I said was that the Kippy places where turnout dropped most had local elections in 2014, making the trend look more severe than it is. Even though they've dropped they're probably well above what they should be given there's no locals this time. I should imagine people still motivated to turnout despite there being no locals to be fairly Kippy here.
>
> Almost all the places where turnout has dropped had local elections in 2014, which given most areas did not have elections then suggests it may be a factor in these places. Kippy places that did not have local elections in 2014 like South Holland have seen (small) increases in turnout this year.
>
> In fact on the list of turnouts only a couple of places in the red didn't have local elections, and even then they're not particularly Kippy like Suffolk Coastal.
Unless you're saying that there's a correlation between UKIP performance and the fact of having local elections in 2014 - which it doesn't sound as though you are, though I'm still not sure - then I can't see what you're getting at.
But we'll know soon enough anyway.
> Just think how distorted the view would have been if these Euro Elections had taken place without The Brexit Party
Nothing distorting at all about having Communists and Thatcherites standing for the same party (one without a manifesto)?
> > @MaxPB said:
> > I’ve been busy this morning, are there any more entrants for the Downing Street beauty pageant?
> >
> > Larry the cat has been installed as third favourite ahead of Matt Hancock.
>
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > Alistair Campbell on R4 says he did not vote Labour in the European Parliament elections for the first time in his life but for a pro Remain party
> >
> > Hopefully he now faces expulsion from the party.
>
> Is it really in the rules that you can't admit voting for a different party after the fact? If so, draconian.
People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules.
You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html
> > @isam said:
>
> > Deal vs No Deal? I’m up for it!
>
>
>
> You said "It would be interesting to tally up the Revoke vs No Deal votes though"
>
>
>
> It's not like a Brexiter to change the the terms after the fact...
>
> I didn’t say I wanted a referendum beteeen revoke and No deal did I?
No, I did. You were interested in the Revoke v No Deal numbers.
It's ok if you want to switch away from an awkward topic though. I can fully understand why you'd want to.
"I’ve been busy this morning, are there any more entrants for the Downing Street beauty pageant?"
.....................................................................................................................
I understand on Tuesday London hospitals will put on alert as the swim suit parade along Downing Street will take place at 7:00pm.
In particular grave concern has been raised as speculation mounts that Boris Johnson will opt for a budgie smuggler thong emblazoned with the union flag. Chief Medical Officer for London, Sir Ponsonby Hack-Nutjob stated :
"Whilst the new 1922 Committee ruling on complete leadership transparency is to be welcomed, we fail to see the requirement for this gratuitous display of flesh that will unsettle the populace and especially the feeble minded. The latter being significantly over represented by the voting members of Conservative MP's."
Ruth there was an election in @ScotParl. We both voted. You got 15 votes and Nicola got 66. 18 months later there was a #Holyrood election - you lost just as the Tories have lost every #Holyrood election. You then decided not to stand for FM in the subsequent @ScotParl vote.
Ruth Davidson
Verified account @RuthDavidsonMSP
But, obviously, fine for a First Minister to be 'installed' in Bute House without a Holyrood election. Eh, Nicola? https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1131852746792013825 …
> > @Sean_F said:
> > Sutton now comes in at 46.8%, up 3.5%, one of the London Boroughs that voted Leave.
>
> Sutton is now >55% Remain based on the recent MRP analysis.
And the Australian Labour Party are still celebrating their election victory one week on after more than 50 polls in a row said they were going to win!
Of course in this country polls are now incredibly fluid - it was only a few weeks ago Labour and the Tories were scoring nearly 80% combined and on some polls are now below 50 per cent.
> People have been expelled for doing so - even in seats which are hopeless for Labour. That hardly applies to the London Euro list. As the article below makes clear about the expulsion of some Labour members in Jeremy's Hunt's seat during the 2017 election its in the rules.
>
> You can't have one rule for some members and another rule for Alastair Campbell. If you don't apply the rules what is the point of them?
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/south-west-surrey-labour-party-louise-irvine-steve-williams-kate-townsend-jeremy-hunt-general-a7725446.html
I'm aware that people can be expelled for advocating a future vote against their party. I understand that rule.
I was asking about when someone says after an election that have voted for another party. Reading the rule on that link (thank you for it) it's not clear to me which way it should be interpreted.
Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views.
Pathetic.
> Ferrari incompetence dumps Leclerc out in Q1.
>
> Pathetic.
>
Made even funnier by it being Vettel the one who knocked him out
> > @Nigelb said:
> > Ferrari incompetence dumps Leclerc out in Q1.
> >
> > Pathetic.
> >
>
> Made even funnier by it being Vettel the one who knocked him out
Not if you’re Leclerc...
> > @solarflare said:
> > > @Nigelb said:
> > > Ferrari incompetence dumps Leclerc out in Q1.
> > >
> > > Pathetic.
> > >
> >
> > Made even funnier by it being Vettel the one who knocked him out
>
> Not if you’re Leclerc...
>
>
Well, true. And I do like Leclerc. But I also enjoy Ferrari getting themselves tied up in all sorts of knots.
>
> Personal view is that it's draconian to throw someone out if the person only said after the election is over that they voted another way. Appreciate others might have different views.
>
I would have said there was a difference between, in the privacy of the booth or envelope, voting another way.
And advertising on Radio 4 or twitter that you voted another way. There was no need for Campbell to tell us. And it is hardly as if he is so innocent in the dark arts as not to know the effect.
It would seem to me to warrant shoving Campbell out of the party.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > Turnout looks to be down where UKIP did best in 2014.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1132191392049115136
>
> Brexit supporters are not only stupid but lazy. Good news.
Also good news for my bets on this election, where I've heavily backed the Brexit Party to get 25%-29.99%