politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Brexit negotiations reach a critical point the latest Y

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited October 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Brexit negotiations reach a critical point the latest YouGov trackers has “Brexit wrong” with 5% lead

New YouGov/Times poll sees CON up 2

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Thirst
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Good old constituency polling, always good for losing cash in bets
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
  • chloechloe Posts: 308
    I live in the constituency and we have been inundated with Lib Dem literature. The labour candidate had to resign so we have had nothing from them for months.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?

    The Lib Dems will be severely over rated in Betting Markets in my opinion. You can tell their supporters are absolutely desperate to believe.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    Perhaps they are the long searched for racists who didn't vote Leave?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    If the MoE for a sample size that small is, say double the normal +/-2.5% (I am guessing, but it won’t be far off) then we could easily be looking at a photo finish rather than that big lead.

    Nevertheless the fact that Berger and the LDs have established sufficient profile to be out in front in a seat poll is big news - even if the seat poll itself is pretty worthless potentially far out from a hypothetical election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    Yet

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184396383148793857?s=20

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184399764168859648?s=20
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,122
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    And 3% Lib Dems who think we are right to leave. Strange world
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, MOE of 4.9%
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1184427393777360896
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    Extraordinarily self aware?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?

    They only named the Lib Dem and Tory candidates I think.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,679
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?

    They used Jeremy Newmark’s name!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    Surprised it's not 93%, most of the leavers on here now seem to be in the "It's the worst thing to happen to the country since the bubonic plague, but you have to respect therwilloftherpeople before you disrespect it, innit?" camp.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    edited October 2019
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    And 3% Lib Dems who think we are right to leave. Strange world
    Mr Stodge? And the residual Liberal Party is anti-EU. Not internationalist enough.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,272
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    Maybe they are Brexiters who think we should have had a coherent strategy before implementing Article 50?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    Can we infer from this poll, that the Lib Dems have done the same thing in all the other defectors' seats and decided not to publish those results?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    The fact that talks are continuing makes nonsense of Barnier's statement yesterday that a Deal had to be agreed by midnight last night!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,719
    edited October 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Yet

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184396383148793857?s=20

    In the run up to the 2017 election, 68% wanted to respect the result.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/909697201768747008
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?


    Just replicating likely general election conditions ?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    And only te Tory and LD candidates were mentioned! Sounds like garbage.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    Amazing symmetry
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    rkrkrk said:

    Can we infer from this poll, that the Lib Dems have done the same thing in all the other defectors' seats and decided not to publish those results?

    More likely that they thought it not worth the expense.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,478
    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

    I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
    I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    How can they do a named candidate poll when we have no idea who the Labour candidate is ?

    They used Jeremy Newmark’s name!
    Indeed. If you don’t have a new candidate the polling company would (should) use the name of whoever stood last time. Which at least should grant a smidgin of name recognition.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    Or 400 people on Golder's Green High Street at Sunday lunch time.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1184427837044019201
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Very hard in constituency polls to find a sample of more than 500. A small sample just increases the margin of error.

    As has been pointed out single seat polls have not had a good record of success.

    Note the poll, from Farage's favourite pollster, was commissioned by the LDs.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1184430083748048896
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    FPT
    kle4 said:

    » show previous quotes
    I didnt know you thought that possible!

    It is very tight but they just take the biscuit
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    And only te Tory and LD candidates were mentioned! Sounds like garbage.
    Generally speaking the degree of accuracy that someone can place in a poll is in direct proportion to their liking of the numbers.

    I know that Survation carried out a poll for BREX at Peterborough that had LAB winning.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    rkrkrk said:

    Can we infer from this poll, that the Lib Dems have done the same thing in all the other defectors' seats and decided not to publish those results?

    No but I would not be surprised if others were on the way.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, MOE of 4.9%
    These "margin of error" values are based on the assumption a representative sample. I am, let say, sceptical that a sample size of 400 in a poll comissioned from a political party is very representative of the whole constiteuncy.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    MikeSmithson said:

    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    And only te Tory and LD candidates were mentioned! Sounds like garbage.
    Generally speaking the degree of accuracy that someone can place in a poll is in direct proportion to their liking of the numbers.

    I know that Survation carried out a poll for BREX at Peterborough that had LAB winning.
    Aside from whether you like the results, what other indicators would you look at for how much to trust a poll, and how well does this one stack up?
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    eristdoof said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, MOE of 4.9%
    These "margin of error" values are based on the assumption a representative sample. I am, let say, sceptical that a sample size of 400 in a poll comissioned from a political party is very representative of the whole constiteuncy.
    Make great bar charts for election leaflets though...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    edited October 2019
    The Survation figures sum through to 79%, which implies Brexit + Greens sum through to 21% :o !
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1184427837044019201

    Hard to pass through the assembly when they have been shirking for almost 3 years , apart from lifting the cash.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,878
    HYUFD said:

    Yet

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184396383148793857?s=20

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184399764168859648?s=20

    Aye. It's one thing to think its wrong to do something, but completely another to think that honouring a vote and doing it anyway is the best thing to do.

    I wish some on here would recognise that.

    I'm one of the 3% of LD voters who think its both right to leave, and would still do it anyway.

    I don't support a No Deal exit in two weeks time, but lets be honest, that's not happening is it?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    MikeSmithson said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Very hard in constituency polls to find a sample of more than 500. A small sample just increases the margin of error.

    ...
    The second sentence is not true. It also makes the risk of "lumpy sampling" considerably higher.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    edited October 2019
    These are the same poll

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1184414037901221888

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited October 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Yet

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184396383148793857?s=20

    I do think this is the right question to ask and I would be interested to see other firms ask it in this way. It certainly chimes with a lot of my own anecdotal experience both within the Conservative Party and on the doorstep (I accept both those samples are unrepresentative!)

    I think a lot of "second referendum" polling respondees are actually answering "If you could go back to June 2016, how would you vote?" regardless of the actual question they are asked.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited October 2019
    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%
    Others 5%
    Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    justin124 said:

    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%

    Others 15 ?

    SDP surge ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,722
    justin124 said:

    The fact that talks are continuing makes nonsense of Barnier's statement yesterday that a Deal had to be agreed by midnight last night!

    It only had to be finished by midnight if a decision was to be made at the Summit. An extension removes that need.

    Indeed, I do wonder if continued negotiations causing our PM to ask for an extension is their plan.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    edited October 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    The Survation figures sum through to 79%, which implies Brexit + Greens sum through to 21% :o !

    Not if Don't Know wasn't excluded. I can imagine there being a fair amount of DK in this constituency given Labour's ongoing issues and the new high-profile LD candidate.

    Edit: final release appears to have DK excluded.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1184432346457661440?s=21
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 674
    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    Do you?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rkrkrk said:

    Can we infer from this poll, that the Lib Dems have done the same thing in all the other defectors' seats and decided not to publish those results?

    You cynic you!
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    There are always about 3%-points which are people answering the question wrongly, reading it wrongly or just answering randomly.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1184433654057132033
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,847
    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    justin124 said:

    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%
    Others 5%
    Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.

    Where was this found?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    basicbridge said:

    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure on it.

    How much more "respect" are you looking for?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    edited October 2019
    basicbridge said:

    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    Do you?

    Utterly at a loss at to why, when you are so perpetually enraged at OGH and all his works, you continue to spend your days posting on his website.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%
    Others 5%
    Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.

    Where was this found?
    UK Opinion Polls on Wilkipedia.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited October 2019
    justin124 said:

    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%
    Others 5%
    Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.

    I'm not 100% but looking at the fieldwork those are just the unweighted VI figures, the released survey is about Brexit and has no headline figures for VI
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Stereotomy said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    And only te Tory and LD candidates were mentioned! Sounds like garbage.
    Generally speaking the degree of accuracy that someone can place in a poll is in direct proportion to their liking of the numbers.

    I know that Survation carried out a poll for BREX at Peterborough that had LAB winning.
    Aside from whether you like the results, what other indicators would you look at for how much to trust a poll, and how well does this one stack up?
    I look at the age splits in the data tables. There's a tendency in single seat polls for this to be very biased towards the older age range which mean that the younger responses have to be scaled up.

    In this case there were 79 18-34 year olds in the sample and their responses were scaled up to 121.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    OldKingCole said:

    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

    I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
    I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
    I went to speak at a meeting of a charity at the Conservative Club when I was a Labour MP - got a couple of amused looks. You do have to put up with looking at framed pictures of Margaret Thatcher amd the like.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    justin124 said:

    The fact that talks are continuing makes nonsense of Barnier's statement yesterday that a Deal had to be agreed by midnight last night!

    Indeed. Where theres a will theres a way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Somebody throw cash at malc, the union depends on it. :)
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    ...is certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that the advisory referendum was a request with no statutory force, not formally an instruction.

    Not for me to pronounce on which is correct (if there is such a thing), but I don't think you can really accuse Parliament of "trying to ignore the referendum mandate", given that they've spent the last three years talking about little else.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1184433654057132033

    We have been told for years Brexit is the end of the union anyway. I'm not sure it has much more impact to suggest boris' proposal causes it instead, or just more effectively, even if true
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,891
    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,272
    OldKingCole said:

    Nigelb said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

    Was the sample size really 400?
    Yes, but it's not exactly a close result
    There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...
    Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

    I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
    I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.
    The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,847
    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sounds like a few MPs are having a nice day out.

    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1184359458966818817?s=19

    Seems a point less trip, the EU will offer an extension if asked so theres no worries, it's in parliaments hands whether theres a deal to vote down or not.
    You just haven't got this whole pointless gesture thing, have you?
    Grieve and co have played a much more astute game than Cummings.
    Grieve has had it easy, with 400 MPs quietly (or otherwise) urging him on - and determinedly blocking off any route to the voters.

    Whether that plays well long term has yet to be seen. If we still end up with Brexit and a House shorn of its Europhile MPs, some may think Cummings has had the last laugh.....
    Antoinette Sandbach has been overwhelmingly deselected by her consituency in her safe seat of Eddisbury
    Talking of whom:

    https://twitter.com/Sandbach/status/1184371828980178944

    NB Antoinette Sandbach voted for Theresa May's deal at every opportunity.
    Indeed but not anymore hence her de-selection

    It does seem a big price to pay but she is one of several who will see their seats won by anti EU conservatives, unfortunately
    In the looking glass world of Leavers, actually voting for Brexit at every opportunity is evidence that an MP is opposed to Brexit.
    Very true, and very crazy
    It's interesting that, since the referendum, the years of progress at not seeing people who share one characteristic as a homogenous mass has been thrown away, seemingly by the people who argued for less broad brush thinking themselves.
    It's got nothing to do with seeing people as a a homogenous mass, it's about some individuals posturing that only they are the true leavers even as they condemn others who vote to leave when they themselves did not. I dont know what you are even on about.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    It's not a bad idea on theory but of course people can use that as an excuse to be a total asshat on the grounds they dont respect something.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    El_Capitano said:

    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    ...is certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that the advisory referendum was a request with no statutory force, not formally an instruction.

    Not for me to pronounce on which is correct (if there is such a thing), but I don't think you can really accuse Parliament of "trying to ignore the referendum mandate", given that they've spent the last three years talking about little else.
    Talking, obfuscating, delaying, hoping to be able to not implement the instruction from the voters.

    That sense of “ignore”... 😂
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,847
    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    Respect is probably the wrong word in this scenario, even if it is the most commonly used. I think we should follow through with the actions flowing from the referendum, but to me that is different to respecting it. I do not at all respect vote leave leaders or its arguments.

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    The Scots still get much more per head than us Welsh.

    Methadone is quote expensive, I suppose.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    That’s a very dangerous philosophy

    Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

    No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 674
    El_Capitano said:

    basicbridge said:

    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    Do you?

    Utterly at a loss at to why, when you are so perpetually enraged at OGH and all his works, you continue to spend your days posting on his website.
    I spend very little of my time reading, and even less of my time posting, on his blog.

    Its also a public blog - we can all add what we like. Do you have a problem with that?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    Don’t think so? I thought the Barnett formula calculated government spending in Scotland
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,878
    Pulpstar said:

    These are the same poll

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1184414037901221888

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

    Looking at that, you'd think she (Berger) would be a shoo-in, but I always think in a GE campaign, on the day a lot of people wobble in the voting booth (I know I have).

    She certainly can win. I think she will struggle.

    For the record, I can't stand the woman. She comes in here (Merseyside) and gets dumped in a nice safe Labour seat. When her politics change, she neither holds a by-election in her own seat, but then scuttles off to a more winnable seat just because she knows she'll get an absolute kicking.

    I do hope she fails in her bid, despite probably going to vote LD myself at the next GE.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited October 2019
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1184425557402030083
    https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1184425560300277760

    The whole thread is worth looking at.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 674
    Scott_P said:

    basicbridge said:

    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure on it.

    How much more "respect" are you looking for?
    Indeed. With much of that time spent in attempts to frustrate that vote by those who said they would, and then failed, to respect it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
    Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    dyedwoolie said:

    justin124 said:

    I have just spotted a Comres survey carried out for ITN 2nd - 14th October - sample size 22,956.

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 14%
    Brx 12%
    SNP 3%
    Others 5%
    Maybe Dont Knows account for remainder.

    I'm not 100% but looking at the fieldwork those are just the unweighted VI figures, the released survey is about Brexit and has no headline figures for VI
    The weighted figures excluding Don't Knows are Con 32 Lab 30 LD 16 BXP 13 but it's not clear if the weighting might've been slightly different for a proper VI poll. https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ComRes_ITN_Brexit-Referendum-Poll_Oct-19-2.pdf
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,891
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    Don’t think so? I thought the Barnett formula calculated government spending in Scotland
    Both, and Wales too.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1184433654057132033

    Gavin Esler should be pleased if that is the case, he wanted to Change the UK
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 674
    El_Capitano said:

    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    ...is certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that the advisory referendum was a request with no statutory force, not formally an instruction.

    Not for me to pronounce on which is correct (if there is such a thing), but I don't think you can really accuse Parliament of "trying to ignore the referendum mandate", given that they've spent the last three years talking about little else.
    "Advisory" referendum. In other words one you think you can ignore. Weasely.

    Fortunately you seem to be well out of tune with the public.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    "Controversial" makes it sound like a dangerous and edgy opinion rather than selfish and spoilt
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    That’s a very dangerous philosophy

    Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

    No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
    They have the right to have their decision enacted. Not respected. The two are not the same.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Alanbrooke said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1184425897522278400?s=21
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,891
    Alanbrooke said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
    In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,878
    Scott_P said:

    basicbridge said:

    We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

    We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure on it.

    How much more "respect" are you looking for?
    A radical suggestion this, but 'enacting it'.
    No one said we could leave the day after the vote. EVERYONE said there would be at least two year negotiations. That we've run to three is unfortunate but hardly disasterous.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,597
    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

    The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change
    The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?
    Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

    The referendum instruction was to leave

    The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

    They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

    Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.
    Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.
    No, but the campaign did. As always it comes back to either a strict technical interpretation, in which case it was "any old means of leaving, yes, but it was only advisory" or the ''respect the spirit of it" viewv in which case yes, politicians said they would respect the result, but then equally we need to respect what the leave campaign said about what would happen if we voted leave."
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

    If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

    We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

    That’s a very dangerous philosophy

    Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

    No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government
    Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    Carnyx said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

    Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
    Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
    everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium
    In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.
    well its a good ploy. Ireland would be bankrupt as a consequence.
This discussion has been closed.