Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BJohnson – the politician who keeps getting overstated in the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BJohnson – the politician who keeps getting overstated in the polls
Back in 2001 the fledgling YouGov polling company first came to our attention with its survey of CON members ahead of the leadership ballot. There was never any doubt that IDS would beat the pro EU Ken Clarke but this new polling company uniquely then using the internet scored a spectacular success by getting the result within one percent.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.
Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat..
Pro-Rogue One
During proroguation laws don't get changed.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1167385045134401537
I found it amazing that there is literally nothing in law about this already... If anything the 2005 Contingencies Act gave even more powers beyond the royal perogative to the PM/government to close down Westminster if they want.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/younger-voters-want-strongman-leader-new-study-claims-vp28t6mns
The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.
That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
So that would take in Boris's mayoral and leadership campaigns but also GE2010 when Cameron converted a poll lead into a minority needing a coalition and also both referendums (which followed Crosby's style) and GE2017. It would even include GE2015 when the rise of the SNP hid a swing south of Hadrian's Wall to the Chaos with Ed Miliband Party.
The Commons has taken the reference every year and the Commons has just taken a six week vacation so I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't have been taken.
Had the Commons cancelled their summer jollies and said Brexit is too important we need to sort this out first then you might have had a point.
Takes me back to the "smiling Daves" and "grumpy Gords"
How innocent we all were then!
It was a bit tongue in cheek , I know there are a few poor lawyers , but not that many.
malcolmg said:
» show previous quotes
G there are two lots who never lose Bookies and Lawyers, you can guarantee you will never see a poor Bookie or Lawyer in your life.
With the possible exception of lawyers who do legal aid.
The government has decreed since Thatcher's time 'private good, public bad' and has aimed to eliminate anything the public sector does to help the lives of the poor and downtrodden (like helping pay a poor person's legal expenses if their employer or landlord shafts them). So to provide further tax cuts for those with yachts, the lawyers who provided this public service were themselves shafted.
It feels to me like MPs want the courts to let them off the hook and not face up to certain actions. If it is illegal then great, we need to know that, but whether it is or not their are actions they can take and should take. It was largely impenetrable legalese for the 3/4 of it I read, I dont think i gained a great deal from doing so.
That said MPs should be better at parsing legalese and as decision makers should feel an obligation to read it themselves and not just rely on summaries.
These Leavers will never be satisfied.
But I've not seen the choices of answers or the full breakdown, so this is just a tentative comment.
Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.
At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.
Labour people were saying Brown was going to win Labour the next election and Mike said no way.
Still astonishing one of Mike’s acquaintances bought Lab seats at circa 380 in the autumn of 2007.
Precious few other issues. It is the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
All the examples you cite happened whilst we were in the EU.
Other EU27 countries have no problem with sovereignty and democracy and being in the EU. What's different about them?
OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
We have Parliament for a reason. Shutting it down is not a good idea.
I am still convinced, like the Brady Amendment, a revised deal will be sufficient.
We need sensible debate not nonsense like this
And it was the Kippers, Leavers and Bastards idea in the first place.
One area Johnson can compromise on is Freedom of movement. A public information campaign to make it clear that blockading the dinghies attempting to cross the Channel is completely congruent with freedom of movement for our European friends and neighbours should work well.
We can even implement it back as we always could have done whilst in the EU as freedom of movement of LABOUR. It's a question plenty of leave voters answered on the paper rather than the one they thought they were answering.
I accept those who voted leave so as to not be undercut by European workers won't be that happy with this change but you can't please everyone.
How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.
But apparently not
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1167390885962817536
And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.
As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
When you don't think about the optics
F1: ha. My Albon tip was eight-hundredths off being green.
Humbug.
BoZo is definitely a dangerous lunatic.
https://twitter.com/scottdesno/status/1167094658742333440
For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.
For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
According to your definition there has never, ever been an unedited photo. Right back to “View from the Window at Le Gras.” every one has had an exposure time and focal length
If I was still subject to bye-laws my local council was placing but stripped of my right to vote, as we would be under the backstop, then I would object to that. Wouldn't you?
If my local council was abolished and a neighbouring council was given authority to pass bye-laws on a council level for what was my council instead but I couldn't vote for it and it was elected by the neighbouring council's voters I'd object to that too. Wouldn't you?
https://twitter.com/rob_ks_ons/status/1167392574161727490?s=21
'Look at Boris, all he's demanding is a very reasonable moderate change to the "antidemocratic backstop" not all these other problems, no reason the EU shouldn't give it to him.'
If the EU does, Parliament ratifies it, job done.
If the EU doesn't, the EU was unreasonable in meeting our moderate demands, we move on, job done.
The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/status/1167343239822790656
This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.
The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.
The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
Suspect that you are right, and it's technically possible to lighten a TV image, but can't see how one could do it in a live interview. I suppose if the producer instructed one camera to be focussed on her all the time, and all the others to keep her out of shot
That seems to be a misconception of what a RAW file is. To get any image from a RAW file requires some processing, and you certainly don't find any of those things from the file.
Without getting into a debate about technical detail, it is entirely true that any reproduced image (whether printed or onscreen) involves a set of decisions on how it is presented, even if made inadvertently.
My point wasn't any sort of criticism of either publication, simply a statement of fact.
An oft-quoted defense of Brexit is that we could vote out govts we do not like. It is baloney. We always have done so.
I've never denied we could elect MEPs while in the EU. We can't in the backstop though. Though as the UK alone we couldn't reverse EU laws unilaterally as part of the EU but that's a whole different conversation.