Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn, May and the death of British compromise
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn, May and the death of British compromise
We like to think of ourselves as a temperamentally moderate country, eager to split any difference, respect other viewpoints, find the middle ground. But the sobering lesson from the European election is that – on this issue, at least, we really are not.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
ok 2nd- unlike team Trot or the tories
> "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
>
> That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
A better figure would be the absolute number of people that is. Dwarfed by the number that voted to Leave in 2016.
> 1.
As someone who believes in zero-indexing, I approve this message.
Half wanting leave are split between hard and soft.
No majority for anything should mean no change.
Better to have half country upset with revoke brexit decision than have 75% upset.
Neither of them was offering a clear specific compromise path that any voter could support with any confidence. With both, they would take your vote and who knows what on Earth either of them would end up doing with it.
#FakePolling
> Roughly half country wants remain.
> Half wanting leave are split between hard and soft.
>
> No majority for anything should mean no change.
> Better to have half country upset with revoke brexit decision than have 75% upset.
Won't 52% be upset if Brexit doesn't happen?
If there were a market for PM after GE, Corbyn should be a very weak favourite right now because we know
i) He is running a party probably competing in all 650 seats (Exclude all NI, SNP and Plaid)
ii) He is currently a party leader (Tories, Lib Dems are changing theirs)
iii) He will run for a seat (Farage might not)
iv) Seats below 200 are stickier for Labour on UNS than other parties on split vote shares.
v) He is more confidence and supply friendly to the Lib Dems & Greens for the right deal (Revocation/2nd referendum); SNP (2nd indy ref) ? than the Tories.
The Tories could be c&s friendly to the BXP or the other way round mind...
Against this we have:
i) His next PM ratings are absolutely appalling. These are a good long term indicator that say he won't be PM.
ii) He's clearly uncomfortable leading a party with such a remainy membership when in his heart he is a leaver.
iii) Labour's anti-semitism issues.
iv) Labour's polling is heading south right now.
v) He could be challenged for the leadership and he is getting older so might pass it over voluntarily.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
> >
> > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
>
> A better figure would be the absolute number of people that is. Dwarfed by the number that voted to Leave in 2016.
The number of people seriously bothered about leaving is down to six million now.
> > @Chris said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > > @Chris said:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The obvious question is how they can determine which is more accurate - the figure with prompting, or the figure without prompting.
>
> > > ------
>
> > >
>
> > > By comparing with actual election results, like the ones last week in which the polls that prompted for the Brexit Party were proved to have overstated their support.
>
> >
>
> > The question is whether there is any evidence that YouGov's overestimate was owing to prompting rather than any number of other possible shortcomings in their methods.
>
> >
>
> > You claimed before that "there is substantial historical evidence that prompting for minor/new parties results in overstating their support" and I asked you to quote the evidence for that. Please can you do so?
>
>
>
> To try to get the discussion back on to a semi-sensible level, the obvious reason for potential error in the European elections was the uncertainty about which respondents would actually vote in an election with a small turnout. I think that uncertainty was clear to everyone throughout.
>
>
>
> And indeed the reason people here expected TBP to do worse than had been indicated by most of the polls was the difference in turnout changes between Brexit-supporting and non-Brexit-supporting areas, which was very fully discussed here between Thursday and Sunday.
>
>
>
> That suggests to me that what YouGov got wrong was their modelling of turnout, and nothing whatsoever to do with whether they prompted or not for the party that was fairly clearly going to top the poll in any case.
>
> But the two are tied up together, as I have already pointed out. A new party does not have the infrastructure to get out the vote. That means that their voters are going to have to be that bit more motivated.
>
> This may also explain why both Labour and the Conservatives came at the bottom end of expectations this time: their get out the vote machinery was not working for them this time.
>
> Polls are not trying to measure abstract party allegiance. They're trying to measure who will actually cast votes.
You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
Ultimately those forces that sought compromise could not find the language to include both Remainers and Leavers with the result that neither accepted the compromise on offer. That is in large part down to how Leave won the referendum campaign. The toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube now.
Still, Nick's central point is right. Sadly, I think that the blame for the polarisation he describes lies unambiguously with the ERG and other hardcore Leavers, mainly in the Conservative Party but also ex-Kippers, who so effectively trashed the deal which would have implemented the orderly Brexit they had campaigned for. As a result of that trashing, the compromise was no longer available; those who had wanted Remain but thought that the referendum result should be respected found themselves being presented with an attempt to blackmail them into accepting something wildly different and far more damaging than an orderly Brexit. No wonder the argument got polarised.
>
> You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
-------
It's not simply intended to model turnout. The same people can respond differently in a poll to how they would vote in a polling booth.
6 Tory leadership candidates have support in double figures so far: Gove, Hancock, Hunt, Javid, Johnson, Raab. The other 6 candidates have just 26 endorsements between them, with around 50% having declared a preference so far. Unless the other 50% have radically different opinions those are the 6 likely to go through to the final rounds.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
Moreover, I’m not convinced the voting totals accurately represent the numbers of those prepared versus those unwilling to compromise. That is arguably true for most of the Brexit vote, but surely some of Labour’s lost vote was by way of protest at their extended prevarications on the great issue of this parliament ?
I’m not buying Nick’s thesis.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > But the two are tied up together, as I have already pointed out. A new party does not have the infrastructure to get out the vote. That means that their voters are going to have to be that bit more motivated.
>
> >
>
> > This may also explain why both Labour and the Conservatives came at the bottom end of expectations this time: their get out the vote machinery was not working for them this time.
>
> >
>
> > Polls are not trying to measure abstract party allegiance. They're trying to measure who will actually cast votes.
>
>
>
> You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
>
> If you bothered reading what I had written, you would see exactly why the prompting strategy works a lot of the time to achieve this. But since you have reached the point where you are more interested in letting off steam than in reasoned discussion, I will turn to the new thread.
?
Of course I read what you'd written. I pointed out that it didn't make sense to prompt for "old" parties and not "new" as a proxy for turnout, because you yourself had pointed out that both a new party and two old established parties had been overestimated.
It would be nice if you could stick to the arguments, and steer clear of ad hominem stuff. But as you will, if argument runs dry.
Indeed a CU would 'solve' the backstop so be welcomed by the EU. This could have been created - Corbyn would have got his GE because the DUP would have pulled down the Tories upon the WA passing.
But his sole focus has been on trying to destroy the Tories. He might well have succeeded. He might just have destroyed Labour too.
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
>
> -------
>
> It's not simply intended to model turnout. The same people can respond differently in a poll to how they would vote in a polling booth.
I don't think it's meant to model turnout at all. Have you seen any statement by YouGov claiming that it's meant to model turnout?
Turnout only comes into the discussion because by common consent it's the likeliest reason for YouGov's failure on polling for the Euro-elections, and you and others are trying to retrospectively invoke that failure as a justification for YouGov's lack of prompting for TBP in Westminster polling.
It really makes very little sense at all, because as far as I can see YouGov have been prompting for TBP in Euro-election polling, but not in Westminster polling. Is that not correct?
I don't share the assessment of others, however. Rather than being willing to compromise the extremists on both sides are chancing their luck and disingenuously pushing for far more than they deserve.
> > @crandles said:
> > Roughly half country wants remain.
> > Half wanting leave are split between hard and soft.
> >
> > No majority for anything should mean no change.
> > Better to have half country upset with revoke brexit decision than have 75% upset.
>
> Won't 52% be upset if Brexit doesn't happen?
My figures were very rough. 52% is far too precise, the electorate has changed, people can change their minds, some people who didn't vote might now wish to do so.....
but even if I accept 52%, 52% upset is less than somewhere in the region of 60-75%.
What you're proposing is analogous to a patient coming to a doctor demanding they have an amputation on a healthy leg, and the doctor saying "That's a bit extreme; I'll chop it off below the knee rather than above".
One comment I would make is that I think the undeclared 50% may well have fairly different opinions from those who have already declared. Looking at the lists, the undeclared look to me to be skewed towards the more moderate wing of the party.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> >
>
> > > But the two are tied up together, as I have already pointed out. A new party does not have the infrastructure to get out the vote. That means that their voters are going to have to be that bit more motivated.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > This may also explain why both Labour and the Conservatives came at the bottom end of expectations this time: their get out the vote machinery was not working for them this time.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Polls are not trying to measure abstract party allegiance. They're trying to measure who will actually cast votes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
>
> >
>
> > If you bothered reading what I had written, you would see exactly why the prompting strategy works a lot of the time to achieve this. But since you have reached the point where you are more interested in letting off steam than in reasoned discussion, I will turn to the new thread.
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> Of course I read what you'd written. I pointed out that it didn't make sense to prompt for "old" parties and not "new" as a proxy for turnout, because you yourself had pointed out that both a new party and two old established parties had been overestimated.
>
>
>
> It would be nice if you could stick to the arguments, and steer clear of ad hominem stuff. But as you will, if argument runs dry.
>
> You started by calling me naive or disingenuous. Your entire perplexing argument has been characterised by unnecessary invective. And you still haven't understood the point that I made. But very well.
Perhaps I am really rather stupid, and have misunderstood everything.
By all means explain why it makes sense for YouGov to prompt for TBP in European elections, but not in Westminster elections.
> Fourth like the Tories
Currently tied in third place with Labour.
One day they will.
> Only on pb could there be a ~ 50 thread row over polling methodology !
About an election which could three years away.
The difference between hard and soft Brexit I have normally understood as whether freedom of movement is retained.
Soft Brexit was not on offer to the electorate and that's why no compromise is possible, because a hard Brexit is not a compromise.
> O/T
>
> 6 Tory leadership candidates have support in double figures so far: Gove, Hancock, Hunt, Javid, Johnson, Raab. The other 6 candidates have just 26 endorsements between them, with around 50% having declared a preference so far. Unless the other 50% have radically different opinions those are the 6 likely to go through to the final rounds.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
>
> Thanks for that - very useful.
>
> One comment I would make is that I think the undeclared 50% may well have fairly different opinions from those who have already declared. Looking at the lists, the undeclared look to me to be skewed towards the more moderate wing of the party.
I suspect the undeclared don't wish to tie themselves down to any particular candidate when even nominations are still 10 days away.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="AndyJS">@AndyJS said: 6 Tory leadership candidates have support in double figures so far: Gove, Hancock, Hunt, Javid, Johnson, Raab. The other 6 candidates have just 26 endorsements between them, with around 50% having declared a preference so far. Unless the other 50% have radically different opinions those are the 6 likely to go through to the final rounds.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
</blockquote>
Thanks for that - very useful.
One comment I would make is that I think the undeclared 50% may well have fairly different opinions from those who have already declared. Looking at the lists, the undeclared look to me to be skewed towards the more moderate wing of the party.</blockquote>
Good spreadheet Andy, and one I would have made myself if you had not (yet again) saved me the bother.
Given the two sources are so far in agreement - btu each has "extras" - might I suggest a third set of numbers, being the total of both lists?
(<a href="https://memeshappen.com/media/created/2016/11/But-what-about-that-shadowy-place-You-must-never-go-there-Simba.jpg" rel="nofollow">Does ConHome have any extras?</a>)
To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
I think Nick's point about 'winning' was pertinent. Or perhaps more accurately - wanting to see the other side defeated.
> "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
>
> That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
+1
It will be hard for the Tories to do this because the first step is to acknowledge that the past three disastrous years have landed the country in an existential crisis which will only be solved with goodwill, compromise and an acceptance of some economic and political hardship - maybe even blood, toil, tears and sweat.
The next step is to point out that the Brexit that was promised at the referendum is a mirage, the UK is in a weak bargaining position and any settlement is going to be essentially on the EU's terms. The Brexit situation has developed not necessarily to the UK's advantage.
Having communicated and gained a degree of acceptance for these unpalatable truths the government then needs to be clear that the national interest will be paramount as it seeks to find a way forward, and the national interest will be defined as
1) sustaining the union;
2) protecting the UK's economy, public services and living standards;
3) protecting and strengthening UK institutions and national identity.
The government needs to put forward a vision of the UK of the future, with greater security, coherence and less inequality, rather like the postwar vision that was articulated in the 1940s, with the aim of moving beyond Brexit and then it needs to begin a time-limited but quite long (2-3 year) national debate on how best to achieve the aims it has set out. This will, of course, include Brexit options but they will be placed in their proper context and not elevated into the holy writ that hard Brexiters like to claim.
It's very unlikely that any of this will come about - there is very little prospect of a government strong enough to level with its electorate coming to power and none of the current crop of political leaders are either willing or able to do it. Corbyn is neither willing nor able, May cannot as she has presided over the debacle for the past three years and as yet there is no sign that any of her putative successors could do it.
>
> Turnout only comes into the discussion because by common consent it's the likeliest reason for YouGov's failure on polling for the Euro-elections, and you and others are trying to retrospectively invoke that failure as a justification for YouGov's lack of prompting for TBP in Westminster polling.
>
> It really makes very little sense at all, because as far as I can see YouGov have been prompting for TBP in Euro-election polling, but not in Westminster polling. Is that not correct?
-------
European election polling is a special case because it's only done in the run up to European elections once every five years.
They explained very clearly that for Westminster polling they have an established methodology, and need to be very careful about when to make the decision to move a party from the 'other' section to the main list, and this decision is driven mainly by data.
Except both were utterly determined that only their particular form of compromise was the acceptable one.
And it's also worth remembering that May fought any attempt to involve Parliament in crafting an alternative.
And if the last minute negotiations between them were anything more than a PR exercise, I've seen no real evidence.
> It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
>
> To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
Nope - keep the commons (as a tourist attraction) and move Parliament somewhere else say Manchester, Leeds or Nottingham.
And I say that as it can't be Birmingham as that would be too near London.
> It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
>
>
>
> To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
>
> Abolish the monarchy and the House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Well, I agree with both of those propositions too, but I don't think they are urgent in the light of the urgent problem of the nasty bitter division that is entirely caused by Leavers (joking, joking!)
>
> Having communicated and gained a degree of acceptance for these unpalatable truths the government then needs to be clear that the national interest will be paramount as it seeks to find a way forward, and the national interest will be defined as
>
> 1) sustaining the union;
> 2) protecting the UK's economy, public services and living standards;
> 3) protecting and strengthening UK institutions and national identity.
>
> The government needs to put forward a vision of the UK of the future, with greater security, coherence and less inequality, rather like the postwar vision that was articulated in the 1940s, with the aim of moving beyond Brexit and then it needs to begin a time-limited but quite long (2-3 year) national debate on how best to achieve the aims it has set out. This will, of course, include Brexit options but they will be placed in their proper context and not elevated into the holy writ that hard Brexiters like to claim.
>
---------
That's a grim vision of British nationalism. Why should other objectives be subsumed by the goal of sustaining a union that is increasingly not fit for purpose?
> Before I go, out of curiosity I'll just try again to see if anyone knows the justification for YouGov prompting for TBP in their European election polling and not in their Westminster polling - on their declared policy of not prompting until they're sure it makes no difference.
Ask YouGov..
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > Turnout only comes into the discussion because by common consent it's the likeliest reason for YouGov's failure on polling for the Euro-elections, and you and others are trying to retrospectively invoke that failure as a justification for YouGov's lack of prompting for TBP in Westminster polling.
> >
> > It really makes very little sense at all, because as far as I can see YouGov have been prompting for TBP in Euro-election polling, but not in Westminster polling. Is that not correct?
> -------
>
> European election polling is a special case because it's only done in the run up to European elections once every five years.
>
> They explained very clearly that for Westminster polling they have an established methodology, and need to be very careful about when to make the decision to move a party from the 'other' section to the main list, and this decision is driven mainly by data.
And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
> <blockquote class="Quote" rel="Richard_Nabavi">@Richard_Nabavi said:
>
>
> <blockquote class="Quote" rel="AndyJS">@AndyJS said: 6 Tory leadership candidates have support in double figures so far: Gove, Hancock, Hunt, Javid, Johnson, Raab. The other 6 candidates have just 26 endorsements between them, with around 50% having declared a preference so far. Unless the other 50% have radically different opinions those are the 6 likely to go through to the final rounds.
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
> </blockquote>
> Thanks for that - very useful.
>
> One comment I would make is that I think the undeclared 50% may well have fairly different opinions from those who have already declared. Looking at the lists, the undeclared look to me to be skewed towards the more moderate wing of the party.</blockquote>
>
> Good spreadheet Andy, and one I would have made myself if you had not (yet again) saved me the bother.
>
> Given the two sources are so far in agreement - btu each has "extras" - might I suggest a third set of numbers, being the total of both lists?
>
> (<a href="https://memeshappen.com/media/created/2016/11/But-what-about-that-shadowy-place-You-must-never-go-there-Simba.jpg" rel="nofollow">Does ConHome have any extras?</a>)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leave-campaigner-andy-wigmore-sparks-race-row-for-saying-remainer-femi-oluwole-looks-like-diane-abbott/ar-AACbFCe?ocid=spartandhp
> It's very unlikely that any of this will come about - there is very little prospect of a government strong enough to level with its electorate coming to power
Especially when a significant proportion of that electorate prefer the certainty of plausible lies over the complexities, nuances and bad news of reality.
> > @Chris said:
> > Before I go, out of curiosity I'll just try again to see if anyone knows the justification for YouGov prompting for TBP in their European election polling and not in their Westminster polling - on their declared policy of not prompting until they're sure it makes no difference.
>
> Ask YouGov..
Thank you. It was just that so many people here seemed keen to be defenders of - perhaps almost cheerleaders for - YouGov, that I thought someone here might know. But perhaps their partisanship stems more from faith than from reason.
>
> And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
Because it's a continuous series of data so there should be as much consistency as possible to allow meaningful comparison over time. Do you think they should have been prompting for Change UK in Westminster polls too?
You cannot compromise if you don't even understand the other side.
> Hard Brexit is not synonymous with No Deal.
> The difference between hard and soft Brexit I have normally understood as whether freedom of movement is retained.
> Soft Brexit was not on offer to the electorate and that's why no compromise is possible, because a hard Brexit is not a compromise.
Indeed, well said. Theresa May's deal was "hard Brexit". No Deal should really be called Brain Dead Brexit
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
>
> Because it's a continuous series of data so there should be as much consistency as possible to allow meaningful comparison over time. Do you think they should have been prompting for Change UK in Westminster polls too?
I'll ask again - why does any of that mean they should be doing something different in ONE from what they do in the OTHER?
Of course, Nottingham already has a Parliament Street.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Chris said:
> > >
> > > You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
> >
> > -------
> >
> > It's not simply intended to model turnout. The same people can respond differently in a poll to how they would vote in a polling booth.
>
> I don't think it's meant to model turnout at all. Have you seen any statement by YouGov claiming that it's meant to model turnout?
>
> Turnout only comes into the discussion because by common consent it's the likeliest reason for YouGov's failure on polling for the Euro-elections, and you and others are trying to retrospectively invoke that failure as a justification for YouGov's lack of prompting for TBP in Westminster polling.
>
> It really makes very little sense at all, because as far as I can see YouGov have been prompting for TBP in Euro-election polling, but not in Westminster polling. Is that not correct?
Have YouGov said that turnout was the reason for their error in the Euro-elections?
Not prompting for "minor parties" might be a proxy for turnout because of party infrastructure (which doesn't always work, but has the advantage of being a simple binary, rather than having to make a judgment about how well a party's GOTV operation is likely to be), but it might also be other things - maybe wavering voters default to devils they know in the polling booth for example. All the adjustments pollsters make are anyway not that scientific, it's like following a recipe where you don't know which ingredients you can change or why.
The strategy looks more successful by the day.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Chris said:
> > >
> > > And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
> >
> > Because it's a continuous series of data so there should be as much consistency as possible to allow meaningful comparison over time. Do you think they should have been prompting for Change UK in Westminster polls too?
>
> I'll ask again - why does any of that mean they should be doing something different in ONE from what they do in the OTHER?
--------
To give just one reason, because European elections are less subject to the problem of people saying one thing and doing another in the polling booth, because they are not seen as having the same importance as a General Election.
Why do you assume bad faith on their part?
> > @ah009 said:
> > It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
> >
> > To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
>
> Nope - keep the commons (as a tourist attraction) and move Parliament somewhere else say Manchester, Leeds or Nottingham.
>
> And I say that as it can't be Birmingham as that would be too near London.
I am willing to compromise with your ideas. But not Leeds. Leeds deserves nothing
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
> >
> >
> >
> > To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
> >
> > Abolish the monarchy and the House of Unelected Has-Beens!
>
> Well, I agree with both of those propositions too, but I don't think they are urgent in the light of the urgent problem of the nasty bitter division that is entirely caused by Leavers (joking, joking!)
It is quite absurd that when we still have an unelected Upper House, where some of its members are there because Gt-Gt-Gt-Gt-Gt- Grandmama let the King into her bedchamber, or because Gt-Grandpa knew Lloyd George, that we are arguing over membership of the EU, on the completely spurious grounds that it isn't democratic enough!
> > @Chris said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Chris said:
> > > >
> > > > You should be able to see why the prompting strategy can't be justified as a proxy for adequate modelling of turnout, seeing that you yourself have just said turnout was also poor for the Tories and Labour!
> > >
> > > -------
> > >
> > > It's not simply intended to model turnout. The same people can respond differently in a poll to how they would vote in a polling booth.
> >
> > I don't think it's meant to model turnout at all. Have you seen any statement by YouGov claiming that it's meant to model turnout?
> >
> > Turnout only comes into the discussion because by common consent it's the likeliest reason for YouGov's failure on polling for the Euro-elections, and you and others are trying to retrospectively invoke that failure as a justification for YouGov's lack of prompting for TBP in Westminster polling.
> >
> > It really makes very little sense at all, because as far as I can see YouGov have been prompting for TBP in Euro-election polling, but not in Westminster polling. Is that not correct?
>
> Have YouGov said that turnout was the reason for their error in the Euro-elections?
No - they've said they're looking into various reasons (which according to the link William Glenn posted earlier) don't include prompting.
It's really difficult to understand how people are justifying the failure to prompt in Westminster polls on the basis of the failure of the European polling - particular considering that (if I understand correctly) they haven't been prompting for TBP in previous Westminster polls.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Chris said:
> > >
> > > And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
> >
> > Because it's a continuous series of data so there should be as much consistency as possible to allow meaningful comparison over time. Do you think they should have been prompting for Change UK in Westminster polls too?
>
> I'll ask again - why does any of that mean they should be doing something different in ONE from what they do in the OTHER?
Perhaps because UKIP won the last Euro elections (and manifestly got nowhere near that level in the subsequent general election), and Brexit effectively replaced UKIP ?
> Yet again, this thread touches on the most momentous failure of Leavers, the failure to establish any kind of consensus from the mandate that they won at the referendum. They needed to win only one in three Remain voters to a grudging acquiescence. But this proved beyond them. They have never seriously asked themselves why.
>
> One day they will.
>
> What do they care? They are toughing it out hoping for 31st October to roll on and we will be out.
>
> The strategy looks more successful by the day.
Extremists don't do compromise. "No surrender" and all that. They are convinced of their own righteousness so much that they will trammel everyone else into the dirt to get to their Utopia. History is littered with the bastards. GB was bound to get a dose of it one day.
> > @eek said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
> > >
> > > To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
> >
> > Nope - keep the commons (as a tourist attraction) and move Parliament somewhere else say Manchester, Leeds or Nottingham.
> >
> > And I say that as it can't be Birmingham as that would be too near London.
>
> I am willing to compromise with your ideas. But not Leeds. Leeds deserves nothing
Just been looking it up: Leicestershire is the centre of population of Britain. Which probably means the centre of population for the UK is somewhere about Burton on Trent. That's the fairest place in my opinion.
> > @anothernick said:
> >
> > Having communicated and gained a degree of acceptance for these unpalatable truths the government then needs to be clear that the national interest will be paramount as it seeks to find a way forward, and the national interest will be defined as
> >
> > 1) sustaining the union;
> > 2) protecting the UK's economy, public services and living standards;
> > 3) protecting and strengthening UK institutions and national identity.
> >
> > The government needs to put forward a vision of the UK of the future, with greater security, coherence and less inequality, rather like the postwar vision that was articulated in the 1940s, with the aim of moving beyond Brexit and then it needs to begin a time-limited but quite long (2-3 year) national debate on how best to achieve the aims it has set out. This will, of course, include Brexit options but they will be placed in their proper context and not elevated into the holy writ that hard Brexiters like to claim.
> >
> ---------
>
> That's a grim vision of British nationalism. Why should other objectives be subsumed by the goal of sustaining a union that is increasingly not fit for purpose?
The first priority of any entity - person, company, country etc etc - is surely self-preservation? And in global politics the whole is almost always greater than the sum of the parts - the USA would not be the power it is today if it consisted of 50 separate countries. You could see the UK as a mini-EU, and I know how keen you are to preserve that....
> > @Chris said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Chris said:
> > > >
> > > > And why does any of that make it more reasonable to prompt for TBP in one than to prompt for TBP in the other?
> > >
> > > Because it's a continuous series of data so there should be as much consistency as possible to allow meaningful comparison over time. Do you think they should have been prompting for Change UK in Westminster polls too?
> >
> > I'll ask again - why does any of that mean they should be doing something different in ONE from what they do in the OTHER?
>
> Perhaps because UKIP won the last Euro elections (and manifestly got nowhere near that level in the subsequent general election), and Brexit effectively replaced UKIP ?
Well, they say they did in the past start prompting for UKIP (I think meaning for Westminster polling), so if they view TBP as having replaced UKIP, consistency would require them to prompt for TBP, I think.
But thank you for at least giving an answer to the question.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @eek said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > It's not up to the individual voter to compromise. It's up the political parties to do so and the political structures to encourage that.
> > > >
> > > > To that end: scrap FPTP and introduce PR. Bulldoze the Commons and build a circular chamber. Architecture matters.
> > >
> > > Nope - keep the commons (as a tourist attraction) and move Parliament somewhere else say Manchester, Leeds or Nottingham.
> > >
> > > And I say that as it can't be Birmingham as that would be too near London.
> >
> > I am willing to compromise with your ideas. But not Leeds. Leeds deserves nothing
>
> Just been looking it up: Leicestershire is the centre of population of Britain. Which probably means the centre of population for the UK is somewhere about Burton on Trent. That's the fairest place in my opinion.
On the site of an old brewery, perhaps?
Johnson 30
Hunt 30
Gove 28
Raab 23
Javid 17
Hancock 13
Harper 7
Malthouse 6
McVey 6
Leadsom 4
Cleverly 4
Stewart 3
> https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1134469589201408001
Being partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis a close second
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > Hard Brexit is not synonymous with No Deal.
> > The difference between hard and soft Brexit I have normally understood as whether freedom of movement is retained.
> > Soft Brexit was not on offer to the electorate and that's why no compromise is possible, because a hard Brexit is not a compromise.
>
> Indeed, well said. Theresa May's deal was "hard Brexit". No Deal should really be called Brain Dead Brexit
Or a "No Mandate Brexit".
You can make a case for the referendum providing a mandate for hard or soft Brexit, but the idea of leaving without a deal is certainly not one for which the referendum provides any justification.
> The first priority of any entity - person, company, country etc etc - is surely self-preservation? And in global politics the whole is almost always greater than the sum of the parts - the USA would not be the power it is today if it consisted of 50 separate countries. You could see the UK as a mini-EU, and I know how keen you are to preserve that....
That's a dangerous idea. The state must exist only insofar as it preserves the interests of the people who live there. If the state is unable to do that, it deserves to be split, absorbed, or otherwise reorganised to improve the lot of its residents.
Not that I'm saying that's the case with the UK. There are arguments both ways. But the UK is a means to an end, nothing more.
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
>
> The totals for the merged list are:
>
> Johnson 30
> Hunt 30
> Gove 28
> Raab 23
> Hancock 13
> Harper 7
> Malthouse 6
> McVey 6
> Leadsom 4
> Cleverly 4
> Stewart 3
Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP!
> On topic, I think a really good metric for whether someone is genuinely able to compromise is if they are able to fairly articulate the other side's arguments.
> You cannot compromise if you don't even understand the other side.
I agree. And it's something I pride myself on.
I do a wicked No Deal Gammon.
> On the site of an old brewery, perhaps?
The Burtonisation of British politics? I'll drink to that.
https://www.backyardcinema.co.uk/past_event/romeojuliet/
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
>
> The totals for the merged list are:
>
> Johnson 30
> Hunt 30
> Gove 28
> Raab 23
> Hancock 13
> Harper 7
> Malthouse 6
> McVey 6
> Leadsom 4
> Cleverly 4
> Stewart 3
Most likely scenario is that 4 or 5 candidates will contest the second round. Those getting less than about 25 votes will come under heavy pressure to step aside.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > Hard Brexit is not synonymous with No Deal.
> > > The difference between hard and soft Brexit I have normally understood as whether freedom of movement is retained.
> > > Soft Brexit was not on offer to the electorate and that's why no compromise is possible, because a hard Brexit is not a compromise.
> >
> > Indeed, well said. Theresa May's deal was "hard Brexit". No Deal should really be called Brain Dead Brexit
>
> Or a "No Mandate Brexit".
>
> You can make a case for the referendum providing a mandate for hard or soft Brexit, but the idea of leaving without a deal is certainly not one for which the referendum provides any justification.
It was supposed to be the "easiest deal in history". So said a disgraced former defence secretary and GP, who knows as much about deal making as your average GP who has never run a business.
> > @tlg86 said:
> > On the site of an old brewery, perhaps?
>
> The Burtonisation of British politics? I'll drink to that.
Burton - the home of Marmite
> Anyone fancy Romeo & Juliet in Islington tonight? Two tickets going to be wasted otherwise
>
> https://www.backyardcinema.co.uk/past_event/romeojuliet/
"Go wisely and slowly. Those who rush stumble and fall."
A message for Brexiters from the Bard.
I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
> > @ah009 said:
> > On topic, I think a really good metric for whether someone is genuinely able to compromise is if they are able to fairly articulate the other side's arguments.
> > You cannot compromise if you don't even understand the other side.
>
> I agree. And it's something I pride myself on.
>
> I do a wicked No Deal Gammon.
That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
> I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
ended in tragedy
-- The Simpsons.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
> >
> > The totals for the merged list are:
> >
> > Johnson 30
> > Hunt 30
> > Gove 28
> > Raab 23
> > Hancock 13
> > Harper 7
> > Malthouse 6
> > McVey 6
> > Leadsom 4
> > Cleverly 4
> > Stewart 3
>
> Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP!
What happened to Javed?