Soldiers at Marble Arch station selling poppies and shouting ‘have you got your poppy yet sir?’ to passers by.
The slow but inexorable drift towards militarism over my lifetime continues.
I dislike this sort of thing. Let people make their own decisions without hectoring them.
Quite right and well said. I used to wear a poppy every year. Now, I don’t. The insistence that one has to wear one has put me off. It can only be a few days before a TV presenter gets hauled over the coals for failing their duty.
TV presenters already are if they dont.
It doesnt make this annual parade of woe is me society is going to help because if the poppies stuff any less an overreaction and an amusing one at that.
I wear one for 11 days every year from 1st to 11th November, and have done so for decades.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
Of course you do
It’s the politicisation of something that doesn’t need to be politicised and never used to be.
Every year we have the same tedious debate all over again like clockwork. If I was competent enough to search for it quickly /if I could be arsed I’d dig out pb.com posts from early November 2018, early November 2017 and early November 2016 where we had exactly the same debate on here: white poppy/red poppy/no poppy/I hate Iraq/Blair was a c*nt/ I hate the military/Tories etc.
I’m not spending the rest of my life every November arguing about it. It’s a simple act of remembrance and a charity collection. Nothing more. And it’s being going on for more than a hundred years.
Those who want to fume about it should really find something better to do with their time.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
Soldiers at Marble Arch station selling poppies and shouting ‘have you got your poppy yet sir?’ to passers by.
The slow but inexorable drift towards militarism over my lifetime continues.
I dislike this sort of thing. Let people make their own decisions without hectoring them.
Quite right and well said. I used to wear a poppy every year. Now, I don’t. The insistence that one has to wear one has put me off. It can only be a few days before a TV presenter gets hauled over the coals for failing their duty.
TV presenters already are if they dont.
It doesnt make this annual parade of woe is me society is going to help because if the poppies stuff any less an overreaction and an amusing one at that.
I wear one for 11 days every year from 1st to 11th November, and have done so for decades.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
Of course you do
It’s the politicisation of something that doesn’t need to be politicised and never used to be.
Every year we have the same tedious debate all over again like clockwork. If I was competent enough to search for it quickly /if I could be arsed I’d dig out pb.com posts from early November 2018, early November 2017 and early November 2016 where we had exactly the same debate on here: white poppy/red poppy/no poppy/I hate Iraq/Blair was a c*nt/ I hate the military/Tories etc.
I’m not spending the rest of my life every November arguing about it. It’s a simple act of remembrance and a charity collection. Nothing more. And it’s being going on for more than a hundred years.
Those who want to fume about it should really find something better to do with their time.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
And if the odds are to believed Labour will lose badly. If this proves correct, what are PBers` thoughts about the Next Labour Leader market? Seems to me that the potential candidates, with the possible exception of Starmer, lack credibility as potential leaders.
Further down the field Cooper is 20/1, but I guessing is hampered by the make-up of the Labour membership. It would be useful to know, if anyone has insight on this, what the hard left/soft left balance is in the membership, particularly after the raft of membership leavers that has been reported.
Further down the field still, Benn stands out to me as a potential leader - but I haven`t confidence to back him, even at 66/1.
OT rant bemused sort of moan. Checking the posh papers for news finds any number of articles on the alleged decline of Bake Off. Is this the middle class Love Island?
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
Kipling talked about a 'brutal and licentious soldiery', and that was how the Army, or at least the Other Ranks, were regarded 100 years ago.
The Duke of Wellington: "I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me." - 200 years ago.
More recently, there was quite a stink when some of the SAS who went into the Iranian Embassy got ino a little bit of hot water for nicking the Rolex watches off the corpses of the terrorists.
The British Army: best legion of thieves in the world.
If the full truth about Basra ever comes out we're all going to end up in The Hague. The Iraqis had little enough but we still robbed them blind.
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
They missed out "and if the Conservative candidate (bastard) was boiling your puppy,".....
"Headline vote intention figures from Survation's poll of NE Somerset residents have the Lib Dems at 28% (+20), in second place behind the Conservatives on 44% (-10). Labour were third on 14% (-20)"
Surely that would have been sufficient without the leading part of the questioN?
I quite agree that there have been cuts but that's not the same thing as austerity.
And the coalition didn't just ring fence certain areas of public spending they also increased spending in other areas - triple lock pensions, help-to-buy and International Aid as examples.
Likewise in the taxation system the increase in personal allowances, the introduction of pensioner bonds and the holding down of council tax and fuel duties are examples of non-austerity.
In the spirit of compromise I quite agree the word "austerity" is ludicrous in the context of what happened after 2010 - the spending cuts after 1945 were austerity.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
Mr. B, sorry for the slow reply, doing a spot of work.
That is a fair comment, but Ken Clarke is the eldest of a few dozen male MPs retiring, not the average of them.
It's useful to drill down into stats, but often the media decides what it wants the story to be (the same way gender-lopsided stories get portrayed as sexism/all or mostly about women if they get the rough deal, whereas for mostly male stories [homelessness, child custody, suicide etc] they don't get presented through that prism).
Could I advise some deep breaths with regards to polling. Tories in a 15 point lead - literally a couple of months ago we had LibDems then Brexit Party poll leads.
Polls that are this volatile are likely to continue to be this volatile. 2017 demonstrated that massive intra campaign swings can happen. We're looking at polls in 2019 showing massive pre-campaign swings and some people are choosing to forget very recent history.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
In the context of the actual polling in the constituency it's not the daftest question to ask, but perhaps a larger font size would be reasonable...
Yesterday I thought the figure given for JRM was 44% in this survey from Survation.
44% is the CON figure with don't knows/refused/won't vote etc removed, the 38% quoted above is from the "tactical" voting question, but with DK etc not removed (which has the effect of making the lead look smaller...)
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
There were several years when, for whatever reason I didn't wear a poppy and I don't recall anything being said. And, somewhat to my disadvantage, I seem quite good at recalling bad events.
Mr. B, sorry for the slow reply, doing a spot of work.
That is a fair comment, but Ken Clarke is the eldest of a few dozen male MPs retiring, not the average of them.
It's useful to drill down into stats, but often the media decides what it wants the story to be (the same way gender-lopsided stories get portrayed as sexism/all or mostly about women if they get the rough deal, whereas for mostly male stories [homelessness, child custody, suicide etc] they don't get presented through that prism).
In the context of the actual polling in the constituency it's not the daftest question to ask, but perhaps a larger font size would be reasonable...
Yesterday I thought the figure given for JRM was 44% in this survey from Survation.
44% is the CON figure with don't knows/refused/won't vote etc removed, the 38% quoted above is from the "tactical" voting question, but with DK etc not removed (which has the effect of making the lead look smaller...)
Comparing Apples with rotten Brussel Sprouts. Chicanery, trickery or lies?
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Indeed, Electoral Calculus gives a Tory majority of 98 on the Barnesian figures so the seat totals look odd.
They assume huge Remain tactical voting, even for Corbyn Labour, I believe
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Tories win 19 seats off Labour but lose seats to SNP and LDs.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
No I've not. If this is not 'in the actual world' then I definitely don't consider Twitter Trolls I've never heard of but proudly boast in their profiles that they are "banned from Facebook" to be 'in the actual world'.
Morning all. So it's 31st October and we have NOT left the European Union "come what may" as Boris Johnson unequivocally promised that we would. If Johnson had not got his election the focus would have been on this failure and on his Deal, which under prolonged scrutiny would have shed appeal, increasingly exposed as being essentially the May Deal amended to capitulate to the EU's demands over Northern Ireland. The next few months could have been a world of pain for the Cons. As it is - well we'll see, won't we. Will Blondie get what's coming to him? Or will he be rewarded for incompetence and duplicity? The people will decide.
Mr. Richard, yeah, and abuse isn't restricted to social media.
A less sensationalist media, hunting for scalps, splits, and headlines, that concentrated more on policies than personalities, would be better for politicians and for the country. But it would involve actually looking at policies.
Mr. Anorak, that's so Fallout 4. The cool kids are all using plasma cutters now.
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Tories win 19 seats off Labour but lose seats to SNP and LDs.
The 4% swing from Labour to the Tories you have actually sees the Tories gain 38 Labour seats on UNS, not 19
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
There were several years when, for whatever reason I didn't wear a poppy and I don't recall anything being said. And, somewhat to my disadvantage, I seem quite good at recalling bad events.
Ditto. I've often gone out in early November without a poppy and nobody has ever said anything to me. I don't particularly like wearing a poppy, not because I have an issue with them but because I tend to lose them so many years I've donated to the legion box but not taken the poppy itself and not worn it - nobody has EVER said anything to me.
Makes all this hoohaa on the internet seem to me just one giant internet bubble completely divorced from the real world.
Football terraces are a bit more real life but not exactly real world and well known for abuse for any excuse. If it wasn't that it would be something else.
Yes, but the point is where the politicisation is coming from. It's not a case of lots of people railing against the whole poppy thing and saying they shouldn't be worn, but more an increase in aggressive criticism of those who don't observe it meticulously (newsreaders, sports presenters, even Strictly contestants ffs....). The comment which then comes round like clockwork is "why is there an increase in attempts to demonise non-poppy wearers?". It's pretty classic culture war territory: create an artificial dividing line, pile in on those the other side of the line and then accuse them of politicising an issue when they complain about that process.
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
I've not seen one solitary post here demonising non-poppy wearers but I do see the opposite.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
The point wasn't 'on here' it was 'in the actual world'. I agree with you, I don't think many people here have criticised those who don't wear poppies or those who do. The debate is about a wider social/cultural change (or perhaps about whether it exists).
I've never seen a non-poppy wearer get demonised 'in the actual world' either.
There were several years when, for whatever reason I didn't wear a poppy and I don't recall anything being said. And, somewhat to my disadvantage, I seem quite good at recalling bad events.
Ditto. I've often gone out in early November without a poppy and nobody has ever said anything to me. I don't particularly like wearing a poppy, not because I have an issue with them but because I tend to lose them so many years I've donated to the legion box but not taken the poppy itself and not worn it - nobody has EVER said anything to me.
Makes all this hoohaa on the internet seem to me just one giant internet bubble completely divorced from the real world.
I've bought a little metal one this year; it's got a permanent pin so it'll be on one coat; probably beside the 'I've recovered from prostate cancer' pin.
Morning all. So it's 31st October and we have NOT left the European Union "come what may" as Boris Johnson unequivocally promised that we would. If Johnson had not got his election the focus would have been on this failure and on his Deal, which under prolonged scrutiny would have shed appeal, increasingly exposed as being essentially the May Deal amended to capitulate to the EU's demands over Northern Ireland. The next few months could have been a world of pain for the Cons. As it is - well we'll see, won't we. Will Blondie get what's coming to him? Or will he be rewarded for incompetence and duplicity? The people will decide.
Perversely, the paralysis seemed to be helping Johnson as the frustration was being directed at Parliament rather than at him. I agree about the new WA - for all his triumphalism he basically gave in to the EU on the areas they wanted which explains why they were so willing to re-negotiate. Barnier had made it clear there would be no significant concessions from the EU side so May's WA wouldn't be re-negotiated. He hadn't expected the new British PM to be so much more accommodating or desperate (delete as appropriate).
I presume the Johnson plan, if he wins a healthy majority, will be to ram through any old PD and trade arrangement with the EU during 2020 always with the threat of exiting to WTO rules if a trade deal can't be finalised by the end of transition.
Morning all. So it's 31st October and we have NOT left the European Union "come what may" as Boris Johnson unequivocally promised that we would. If Johnson had not got his election the focus would have been on this failure and on his Deal, which under prolonged scrutiny would have shed appeal, increasingly exposed as being essentially the May Deal amended to capitulate to the EU's demands over Northern Ireland. The next few months could have been a world of pain for the Cons. As it is - well we'll see, won't we. Will Blondie get what's coming to him? Or will he be rewarded for incompetence and duplicity? The people will decide.
Perversely, the paralysis seemed to be helping Johnson as the frustration was being directed at Parliament rather than at him. I agree about the new WA - for all his triumphalism he basically gave in to the EU on the areas they wanted which explains why they were so willing to re-negotiate. Barnier had made it clear there would be no significant concessions from the EU side so May's WA wouldn't be re-negotiated. He hadn't expected the new British PM to be so much more accommodating or desperate (delete as appropriate).
I presume the Johnson plan, if he wins a healthy majority, will be to ram through any old PD and trade arrangement with the EU during 2020 always with the threat of exiting to WTO rules if a trade deal can't be finalised by the end of transition.
A week, Mr S is a long time in politics. Who knows what is going to be said, and by whom!
I don't know where those figures are coming from, but I simply do not believe that a 10.5% Tory-Lab lead will result in the Tories winning 5 fewer seats than they did in 2017!
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Tories win 19 seats off Labour but lose seats to SNP and LDs.
The 4% swing from Labour to the Tories you have actually sees the Tories gain 38 Labour seats on UNS, not 19
I use 80% UNS and 20% multiplicative. UNS has the problem that it is uniform. It adds the same share to every constituency. The multiplicative multiplies the share recognising that the absolute increase in share is likely to be higher where the original share is higher. So that's one difference. There are also tactical voting differences (reduces Tory gains from Labour by 8 seats) and allocation of the green share. It's matching quite well with the individual constituency polls.
The next major event will be whether or not Farage decides to contest only a small number of seats.
And where the BXP vote goes where there is no BXP candidate. I'd like to see some polling on that.
I assume it is a mixture of ex-Tories who are unhappy with the Johnson deal, ex-Lab who are strong leavers or just pissed off and ex-UKIP voters.
My current guess is the current 12% BXP share splits 4% Tory, 4% Lab, and 4% UKIP/NV - so BXP absence is a wash with regard to Tory and Labour.
I think the remaining split would be slightly more favourable to the Tories than that. Something like 4 Tory, 2 Lab, 6 Won't vote.
Could be. We need data! It will vary depending on the type of constituency of course. If it is a Labour Leave seat, there may be more ex Labour in the BXP box.
Comments
Rather like the increasing militarisation, another American import that we could do without.
All I see is demonisation of those that do have poppies or "militarisation" when it is nothing of the sort. If you don't want one that is your choice.
And if the odds are to believed Labour will lose badly. If this proves correct, what are PBers` thoughts about the Next Labour Leader market? Seems to me that the potential candidates, with the possible exception of Starmer, lack credibility as potential leaders.
Further down the field Cooper is 20/1, but I guessing is hampered by the make-up of the Labour membership. It would be useful to know, if anyone has insight on this, what the hard left/soft left balance is in the membership, particularly after the raft of membership leavers that has been reported.
Further down the field still, Benn stands out to me as a potential leader - but I haven`t confidence to back him, even at 66/1.
Those polling figures are not far off 2015 besides the Lib Dems but with a bigger Tory lead over Labour, yet supposedly Tories will win 18 fewer than they did in 2015 while Labor will win 10 fewer than they did in 2015? That makes no sense!
Surely that would have been sufficient without the leading part of the questioN?
I assume it is a mixture of ex-Tories who are unhappy with the Johnson deal, ex-Lab who are strong leavers or just pissed off and ex-UKIP voters.
My current guess is the current 12% BXP share splits 4% Tory, 4% Lab, and 4% UKIP/NV - so BXP absence is a wash with regard to Tory and Labour.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/160164/north-east-somerset-constituency-poll/
That is a fair comment, but Ken Clarke is the eldest of a few dozen male MPs retiring, not the average of them.
It's useful to drill down into stats, but often the media decides what it wants the story to be (the same way gender-lopsided stories get portrayed as sexism/all or mostly about women if they get the rough deal, whereas for mostly male stories [homelessness, child custody, suicide etc] they don't get presented through that prism).
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1189693996076978176
Polls that are this volatile are likely to continue to be this volatile. 2017 demonstrated that massive intra campaign swings can happen. We're looking at polls in 2019 showing massive pre-campaign swings and some people are choosing to forget very recent history.
You have now.
It would do them all good to keep off twatter but they're probably addicted to it.
They assume huge Remain tactical voting, even for Corbyn Labour, I believe
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=35&LAB=24&LIB=18+&Brexit=12&Green=3&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
I hope you're all gearing up for the riot we were promised. When does it start? I've just got to finish hammering these nails into my baseball bat.
A less sensationalist media, hunting for scalps, splits, and headlines, that concentrated more on policies than personalities, would be better for politicians and for the country. But it would involve actually looking at policies.
Mr. Anorak, that's so Fallout 4. The cool kids are all using plasma cutters now.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
https://punditarena.com/football/oisinmcqueirns2758/peter-crouch-on-james-mcclean-abuse/
Makes all this hoohaa on the internet seem to me just one giant internet bubble completely divorced from the real world.
I presume the Johnson plan, if he wins a healthy majority, will be to ram through any old PD and trade arrangement with the EU during 2020 always with the threat of exiting to WTO rules if a trade deal can't be finalised by the end of transition.
Electoral calculus is quite crude.