Interesting that Labour launch today in Battersea-would tie in with the defensive strategy.As I have mentioned before, I understand they could be in trouble in this seat from the Tories as Labour voters slip away to the LDs. Very early days though of course.
Just looked at the past results there, and it doesn't look good for the Labour incumbent if there is any swing to the LD in London. I'm assuming it is still fairly gentrified 'nappy valley' territory round there?
With the stated objective of keeping the Tories out.
Tactical voting advice is inherently about keeping a particular party out, no? For instance I'm I'm certain that a Unionist tactical voting wheel of SNPbad is being fashioned in the orc pits of Barad-dûr as I type.
Sure - but the context is Gina Miller the doughty champion of Parliament’s rights.
That was all bollocks. She was just a wealthy, articulate anti-Tory Remainer who saw an opportunity to overturn the people’s wishes
It is possible to be a champion of parliamentary rights, and be either wealthy or poor, pro or anti tory and be in the majority or minority views on various issues of the day. Articulate certainly helps though.
If you were to create seven age intervals with equal numbers of voters in them, what would they be? I'm guessing you probably wouldn't have 18-24 and 25-29 as separate intervals.
would it not make sense to the bars as, approximately, equal populations?
Yes. Unless there's been a recent explosion in the population of British people in their 20s then it is misleading to have two bars to set along those for people in their 30s, 40s, etc.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
By praising John Bercow for cutting back on the number of "strange garments" worn in Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn deliberately triggered Tories into jeering at the green tie he was wearing, Then it turns out the tie was to honour the victims of the Grenfell fire. Ouch. One-nil.
But he won yesterday. The jeerers found their access to the whining stage at the end had been cut off.
This is going to be a corker of an election. The TIG having now practically rotted away in the polls and what's happening with this year's other new association the Brexit Party still uncertain, the LDs may have positioned themselves as a "don't vote Labour" effort in some markets but this is a two horse race: essence of Labour versus essence of Tory.
Essence of Hard Labour vs Essence of Tory Bluekip probably appeals to about 40% of the electorate. What are the rest of us supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and see which side gets to make a mess of it first?
I think it will be more essence of Labour versus essence of Tory: not the hard or UKIP-friendly versions, but the core brands - of two parties which together attracted 85% of GB voters in 2017. For much of its history Labour hasn't been especially hard and the Tory party hasn't been especially anti-EU. It won't be like the 2019 EU election where the two parties' combined voteshare was somewhere around 25%.
Well for many it feels like we are being asked if we prefer to be poorer through bonkers Brexit and US trade deals, or to be poorer instead through bonkers marxism and state confiscation of assets.
No real conversation on the environment, on Britains future in the world, what education we need, what problems we can solve quickly and cheaply and a plan for tackling the harder problems (left behind towns, elderly care, management of immigration)
An interesting set of splits, and I wonder about the samples on that. Some particularly striking features:
1. Brexit Party have an enormous problem (but also potentially an opportunity) with female voters - close to 20% with middle aged men, close to zero with middle aged women.
2. Labour still doing well with younger groups, and Lib Dems less well than you might expect with a relatively youthful leader (albeit not in the age bracket) and a youth-friendly Brexit policy. I wonder if we might see that shift a bit over the campaign - Corbyn is not likely to be the "flavour of the month" choice he was in 2017 and there's an opportunity for Tories and Lib Dems there.
3. Interesting to see the Lib Dems leading (narrowly) with middle aged women. Perhaps not surprising given their leader is a fully paid up member of that group. Again, it will be fascinating to see if the Lib Dems build on that or other parties can bite into it - the retirements of some senior female politicians in that group does play into a narrative that might move the group towards the Lib Dems and other smaller parties.
Interesting that Labour launch today in Battersea-would tie in with the defensive strategy.As I have mentioned before, I understand they could be in trouble in this seat from the Tories as Labour voters slip away to the LDs. Very early days though of course.
Just looked at the past results there, and it doesn't look good for the Labour incumbent if there is any swing to the LD in London. I'm assuming it is still fairly gentrified 'nappy valley' territory round there?
My son lives there so I know it pretty well.It is quite mixed with many professional yuppy types like that but also very cosmopolitan and multi racial.Momentum flooded it with hundreds of activists to win last time.It may be different this time around.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
Boris is a lucky general.
The DUP can tell us how much Johnson's promises are worth.
With the stated objective of keeping the Tories out.
Tactical voting advice is inherently about keeping a particular party out, no? For instance I'm I'm certain that a Unionist tactical voting wheel of SNPbad is being fashioned in the orc pits of Barad-dûr as I type.
Sure - but the context is Gina Miller the doughty champion of Parliament’s rights.
That was all bollocks. She was just a wealthy, articulate anti-Tory Remainer who saw an opportunity to overturn the people’s wishes
A claim you could credibly make if her case had been dismissed at first instance as an abuse of process. Remind us...
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
Corbyn's platform is one of class war and anti aspiration
So depressing
I think Labour will do better than the polls suggest despite Corbyn,
Corbyn's problem is that he's an unpatriotic socialist. I think he'd probably do well in the current climate, even despite his old-fashioned socialist economic ideas, if he wasn't regarded as someone who hates what Britain stands for.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
Boris is a lucky general.
The people who think Boris & Donald will stitch them up on the NHS are not necessarily going to believe the two of them looking down the camera together and telling us it ain't so.
In fact the two of them standing together saying pretty much anything is true / not true is likely to make a lot of people think the reverse must be the case.
Apart from the triumphalist gloating of the Conservatives on here, who will then have the small matter of actually providing good governance for this country, the other main result of a Conservative landslide will be an opportunity for Labour.
Defeat brings opportunity - indeed, you can tell a lot about a party from how it handles its defeats. While I'm not a fan of the symmetrical pattern of history, a third successive GE defeat, especially if it is a significant reverse from 2017 (back to low 200s for example) would provide Labour with a chance to wipe the slate clean.
That's not how politics works though - you won't see a centrist immediately take over. What tends to happen is someone who becomes a leader begins a journey of change just as so many have done in the past. The Neil Kinnock of 1992 was unrecognisable from the Neil Kinnock of 1983 and the same opportunity beckons for a new leader to take the party and move it back to power.
Make no mistake, Boris will find the next GE a lot harder than this because people will have had five years of him and he will have a record to defend. Labour may well, if they truly want to get back into Government, have a real opportunity to present themselves as a credible alternative which, at the moment, they aren't.
You can rely on Labour to react in exactly the wrong way to its impending defeat. Instead of asking questions of itself, the party will blame everyone else.
I think the way the Tories develop over the next few years is going to be grimly fascinating. It is very clear they are heading way to the right. I am not sure that the country is ready for what is coming. My strongly held belief is that Johnson will be the last Tory PM to win an election for a generation. The reality of Brexit is going to prove immensely unpopular.
When you say Boris will head right, what do you mean? Socially, fiscally? Both? Seems to me, from reading his columns over the years, that he is pretty socially liberal and no more pro market than Cameron was.
I would agree entirely.
My concern with Johnson is always his competence and his aptitude (I think he is basically intellectually and practically lazy) not his underlying philosophy as far as it can be gleaned.
Aside from some other obvious criticisms there, I find the implied equivalence between supporting terrorist groups and supporting votes for non-UK citizens living, working, and paying taxes in the UK to be rather sinister.
You can make arguments for or against extending the franchise in that manner. But to suggest an equivalence between it and support for terrorism shows a remarkably xenophobic, and rather unhinged, approach to political debate.
I also just think this level of hyperbole will backfire on the Conservatives. Pinning specific instances of being weak on antisemitism in Labour strikes me as potentially effective, whereas screaming "terrorist!!!!" at a man in his 70s seems unlikely to win new people over, and feels more like preaching to the choir.
I said that if the Tories are saying this Parliament is broken and we need an election, but Parliament continues to block an election, then his polling could continue to improve. That's not possible if he's not calling for a 'now' election now is it? Thinking cap please.
Had Labour agreed to the election last September they'd have gone into it with a better relative polling to the Tories than they are now.
The implication of the first para is that you think Johnson would have preferred to have spent the next few months trying and repeatedly failing to get an election, rather than succeeding in getting this one on Dec 12th. Which I have to say seems unlikely.
The second para is a factual statement but is not particularly relevant to the point we're chewing over.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
Boris is a lucky general.
The DUP can tell us how much Johnson's promises are worth.
If the DUP feel so "British", they should be reminded that in Great BRITAIN, abortion and gay marriage are legal.
Interesting that Labour launch today in Battersea-would tie in with the defensive strategy.As I have mentioned before, I understand they could be in trouble in this seat from the Tories as Labour voters slip away to the LDs. Very early days though of course.
I'd probably expect Labour to hold Battersea despite the slim majority.
YouGov found 13% for BXP? Did they ask "And which way will you vote if BXP isn't standing in your constituency?" Polling may be worth more once nominations close in 14 November.
Your belief that people will pay much attention to the nominations is touching.
The impact will be felt much slower, due to their non-campaigning pushing them from the front of people's minds. There will still be plenty of people disappointed when they enter the polling booths.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
Boris is a lucky general.
The DUP can tell us how much Johnson's promises are worth.
I offer no comment on what it means for later, simply that he gets a chance at refuting the allegation on video, with Trump.
YouGov found 13% for BXP? Did they ask "And which way will you vote if BXP isn't standing in your constituency?" Polling may be worth more once nominations close in 14 November.
Your belief that people will pay much attention to the nominations is touching.
The impact will be felt much slower, due to their non-campaigning pushing them from the front of people's minds. There will still be plenty of people disappointed when they enter the polling booths.
If the Brexit Party aren't standing in 90% of seats the pollsters will have to significantly reduce the party's showing in the national polls to reflect that.
The Trump/NHS line is not that hard for Boris to combat, given that he has the NATO summit with Trump in December just before the vote. He can manufacture (likely with Trump’s blessing) a “the NHS is not for sale” meeting.
Boris is a lucky general.
The DUP can tell us how much Johnson's promises are worth.
If the DUP feel so "British", they should be reminded that in Great BRITAIN, abortion and gay marriage are legal.
Once the DUP had rejected TM's deal there was nowhere for them to go, except Remain.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
Trump is quite clear on America first and trade deals are a zero sum game for him, he needs the other side to lose. We have just seen what Johnson is willing to give (everything) in order to get a deal through.
If there is a Trump Johnson FTA it will be a huge loss to the UK.
In normal circumstances I would be quite content with a FTA with the US, but would have preferred that negotiated through the EU to give equality of negotiating power.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
Corbyn's platform is one of class war and anti aspiration
So depressing
I think Labour will do better than the polls suggest despite Corbyn,
Corbyn's problem is that he's an unpatriotic socialist. I think he'd probably do well in the current climate, even despite his old-fashioned socialist economic ideas, if he wasn't regarded as someone who hates what Britain stands for.
I'd vote for someone whose platform was anti-perspiration.
Interesting that Labour launch today in Battersea-would tie in with the defensive strategy.As I have mentioned before, I understand they could be in trouble in this seat from the Tories as Labour voters slip away to the LDs. Very early days though of course.
The Lib Dems might even win Battersea, if Brexit dominates.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
£10 minimum wage for 16+ will see a return of high youth unemployment.
Dont Tories say that everytime Minimum wage is brought up
There must be a laffer curve but for minimum wage
Yes. There is.
And at what point do job losses occur when u raise the minimum wage
I think it’s a question of the relative cost of an automated solution.
A case in point - I don’t know what it’s like round where you live but all of our automated car washes have closed in favour of cheaper (and better) manned versions. One can legitimately question whether they all pay the minimum wage but let’s assume it is properly enforced - at some point the pricing must mean the automated ones reopen and those jobs are lost.
That’s not a bad thing for everyone if you also have policies on training and upskilling, but at some point you’re left with a permanently unemployed group of people because there’s no unskilled jobs left.
So we have had two tactical voting websites mentioned so far, one of which seems to default to “Vote LD” and the other to “Vote Labour”. Are they going to end up cancelling out?
To be fair, I think the Miller one defaults to whoever came second to the Tories. Hence vote Labour in Woking and Lib Dem in Guildford.
It's still not great to be honest.
It's far worse than "not great". In Witney, the Tories got 33.8k in 2017, Labour 12.6 k and LD 12.5k. In 2019, the LD's polled ten times what Labour got.
Yet the Miller site describes the seat as "In the 2019 general election, the data suggests that Witney will be a contest between Conservative and Labour". Which is manifest nonsense.
This isn't a piece of objective advice: it's simple Labour propaganda by @votetools "a political tech collective" - or fellow traveller for a bunch of neo-Marxists who want Britain out of the EU and more closely aligned with Putin
Miller - who claims to be a Remainer - should be ashamed to be associated with this transparent Corbynbite crap.
Lesson: get the anoraks to check it first.
Lesson - vote for the party you actually prefer, perhaps ?
Either that or grow up and see that the Stop the Tories at all costs is infantile nonsense.
Based on history we still have social services, NHS, education etc. When they grow up they will win. Tony did.
I have a hunch that Farage will decide not to stand ANY candidates in this election. Of course he would have a problem rowing back from the selections already made (especially as candidates had to pay £100 for the privilege of being considered), but he's got that problem if he decides to concentrate on just a few key seats, and in some ways a complete stand-down is easier to justify. He can present it as a tactical retreat to concentrate on being a mass movement for a 'true' Brexit in the next stage of negotiations.
The reasons why this deal is so much worse than May's are obvious. Firstly it is seriously bad for NI, and especially for the union; the DUP is right that it's completely unacceptable that businesses will have to fill in export forms for trading within their own country. Secondly, it hands a loaded gun to the EU, since it removes the backstop as a fall back position if we can't agree an FTA with them; we'll be left with exactly the same weak position that got us to this mess on the Withdrawal Agreement, of having only the disaster of No Deal available as an alternative to whatever they deign to offer us. Under May's deal, the EU would have had to swallow the backstop, giving us complete access to the Single Market for goods for zero cost, and there was no way they'd have been happy to let that happen for long if at all. We on the other hand would have been 100% protected from any cliff-edge.
Funny how its just Remainers claiming the backstop is something that would be great for us. For the rest of us, removing the backstop was a priority and to claim the deal is worse because it has removed the backstop is rather self-defeating! Removing the backstop was the point.
What got us into this mess was our inability [due to Parliament] to walk away. With the backstop gone and a majority Parliament we would have that in the future talks.
As for blame, yes, I underestimated the credulousness of Leavers. I thought they'd be able to distinguish 'we will leave on the 31st October, do or die' from 'I will do my best to ensure we leave on the 31st October'. It seems they can't, so for the moment at least they trust Boris. We'll see how long that lasts, but it will get him through this election.
There is no difference. One is floral language but we understand politics and understand the former means "I will do my best" - and nobody can argue he hasn't.
May did not do her best, I don't believe Hunt would have done his best. Your and your fellow Remainers hang up on "do or die" and inability to comprehend it meant "I will do my best" rather than "I will literally die" is where you have gone wrong.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
YouGov found 13% for BXP? Did they ask "And which way will you vote if BXP isn't standing in your constituency?" Polling may be worth more once nominations close in 14 November.
Your belief that people will pay much attention to the nominations is touching.
The impact will be felt much slower, due to their non-campaigning pushing them from the front of people's minds. There will still be plenty of people disappointed when they enter the polling booths.
If the Brexit Party aren't standing in 90% of seats the pollsters will have to significantly reduce the party's showing in the national polls to reflect that.
It's a tricky one. I don't think pollsters adjusted in 2017, despite the Greens only standing in around two thirds of seats and UKIP in around half. This was partly behind the fact the Greens underperfomed the polls a little, and UKIP a lot, on the day itself.
If the Brexit Party stood in a tiny proportion of seats only, pollsters would need to take a view - it'd be silly to have them polling 10-15% when such a totally would be literally impossible even if they got 100% everywhere they stood.
I still think Farage would be crazy to withdraw from a high proportion of seats. He will get his message out in Thurrock (or wherever) not principally by leaflets there but by having his big faces constantly on the telly. But as soon as he retreats to a few seats, his case for broadcast parity (or anything like it) goes off a cliff.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
There's lots of reasons, but that's not one of them. Of course the NHS can get a good price, it's a big purchaser. Same as any big purchaser. There's nothing 'procedurally unfair' in that, any more than there is in Apple getting good prices from its Chinese suppliers.
The reasons why this deal is so much worse than May's are obvious. Firstly it is seriously bad for NI, and especially for the union; the DUP is right that it's completely unacceptable that businesses will have to fill in export forms for trading within their own country. Secondly, it hands a loaded gun to the EU, since it removes the backstop as a fall back position if we can't agree an FTA with them; we'll be left with exactly the same weak position that got us to this mess on the Withdrawal Agreement, of having only the disaster of No Deal available as an alternative to whatever they deign to offer us. Under May's deal, the EU would have had to swallow the backstop, giving us complete access to the Single Market for goods for zero cost, and there was no way they'd have been happy to let that happen for long if at all. We on the other hand would have been 100% protected from any cliff-edge.
Funny how its just Remainers claiming the backstop is something that would be great for us. For the rest of us, removing the backstop was a priority and to claim the deal is worse because it has removed the backstop is rather self-defeating! Removing the backstop was the point.
What got us into this mess was our inability [due to Parliament] to walk away. With the backstop gone and a majority Parliament we would have that in the future talks.
As for blame, yes, I underestimated the credulousness of Leavers. I thought they'd be able to distinguish 'we will leave on the 31st October, do or die' from 'I will do my best to ensure we leave on the 31st October'. It seems they can't, so for the moment at least they trust Boris. We'll see how long that lasts, but it will get him through this election.
There is no difference. One is floral language but we understand politics and understand the former means "I will do my best" - and nobody can argue he hasn't.
May did not do her best, I don't believe Hunt would have done his best. Your and your fellow Remainers hang up on "do or die" and inability to comprehend it meant "I will do my best" rather than "I will literally die" is where you have gone wrong.
On the backstop I think we all have to accept there’s an honest difference of views and stop arguing over them. You and I take the view that walking away is credible and the damage limited; remainers do not. We both draw different conclusions from the same data.
There probably a name for the phenomenon in psychology.
So we have had two tactical voting websites mentioned so far, one of which seems to default to “Vote LD” and the other to “Vote Labour”. Are they going to end up cancelling out?
To be fair, I think the Miller one defaults to whoever came second to the Tories. Hence vote Labour in Woking and Lib Dem in Guildford.
It's still not great to be honest.
It's far worse than "not great". In Witney, the Tories got 33.8k in 2017, Labour 12.6 k and LD 12.5k. In 2019, the LD's polled ten times what Labour got.
Yet the Miller site describes the seat as "In the 2019 general election, the data suggests that Witney will be a contest between Conservative and Labour". Which is manifest nonsense.
This isn't a piece of objective advice: it's simple Labour propaganda by @votetools "a political tech collective" - or fellow traveller for a bunch of neo-Marxists who want Britain out of the EU and more closely aligned with Putin
Miller - who claims to be a Remainer - should be ashamed to be associated with this transparent Corbynbite crap.
Lesson: get the anoraks to check it first.
Lesson - vote for the party you actually prefer, perhaps ?
I agree with that -- which is why the LibDems tactic of getting smaller parties to stand down in their target seats is so profoundly unpleasant and anti-democratic.
There will be some tactical voting -- but there are many people who want to vote Green, not LibDem. Or Plaid Cymru, not LibDem. They want to vote in a way that means they are true to themselves, and their beliefs.
The tactical voting charade is perfect for people who don't believe in anything positive.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
I simply don't believe 35.5 vs 24.3 (an 11.2% lead) can possibly mean that that the Tories will be short of a majority
You have the Tories 0.6% down on 2015 and Labour 4.7% down on 2015, but the Tories 14 seats down and Labour 14 seats down. That doesn't seem plausible.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
It's literally illegal for the US government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for Medicare/aid and then the effect of the law is used to castigate them for being wasteful.
I have a hunch that Farage will decide not to stand ANY candidates in this election. Of course he would have a problem rowing back from the selections already made (especially as candidates had to pay £100 for the privilege of being considered), but he's got that problem if he decides to concentrate on just a few key seats, and in some ways a complete stand-down is easier to justify. He can present it as a tactical retreat to concentrate on being a mass movement for a 'true' Brexit in the next stage of negotiations.
Haha even a 11% lead isnt enough for a tory majority in your model? Really? What sort of lead would it take?
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
The national polls won't be showing the tactical voting effect (yet). It would show up in a constituency poll when people are asked about the specific choice they have, ideally with names as well as parties. So I calculate the tactical voting effect after the change in national share effect.
In the few constituency polls that are available, Cambridge and NE Somerset, my model predictions are not way out of line.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
One thing to watch in the polls is whether Boris's woman problem continues. It may be this will decide whether Boris agrees to a debate including Jo Swinson, or if CCHQ deems it too risky to have two hours of Boris hectoring a woman on national television.
Considering the woman concerned, that's not the direction of hectoring I'd foresee.
I said that if the Tories are saying this Parliament is broken and we need an election, but Parliament continues to block an election, then his polling could continue to improve. That's not possible if he's not calling for a 'now' election now is it? Thinking cap please.
Had Labour agreed to the election last September they'd have gone into it with a better relative polling to the Tories than they are now.
The implication of the first para is that you think Johnson would have preferred to have spent the next few months trying and repeatedly failing to get an election, rather than succeeding in getting this one on Dec 12th. Which I have to say seems unlikely.
The second para is a factual statement but is not particularly relevant to the point we're chewing over.
No, the implication of the first paragraph is that Johnson wanted an election now [he can win] but if he failed to get it the next few months would have been frustrating but would have just postponed the inevitable. Why not want to win a majority now, just because you can win a majority later?
If she becomes next Labour leader, it will be less than 3 years after becoming an MP for the first time.
Will that be the quickest rise to power of an MP?
Depending on how long the leadership election takes - I think William Pitt the Younger was "elected" for a pocket borough in January 1781 and became PM at the end of 1783 - 2 years and 11 months.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
Trump is quite clear on America first and trade deals are a zero sum game for him, he needs the other side to lose. We have just seen what Johnson is willing to give (everything) in order to get a deal through.
If there is a Trump Johnson FTA it will be a huge loss to the UK.
In normal circumstances I would be quite content with a FTA with the US, but would have preferred that negotiated through the EU to give equality of negotiating power.
I agree on all that, except that Johnson won't be desperate in this case. I very much doubt if there will be an FTA with the US, but if there is it will take a long time, especially as Congress have to ratify it. Trump may well be history before we get anywhere near an agreement.
What's more worrying to me is the blatant self-harming anti-Americanism that the left indulge in. There are a hell of lot of good things in US healthcare innovations, and the attitude seems to be that somehow we shouldn't take advantage of them because - shock horror! - they might give some profit to US companies.
So we have had two tactical voting websites mentioned so far, one of which seems to default to “Vote LD” and the other to “Vote Labour”. Are they going to end up cancelling out?
To be fair, I think the Miller one defaults to whoever came second to the Tories. Hence vote Labour in Woking and Lib Dem in Guildford.
It's still not great to be honest.
It's far worse than "not great". In Witney, the Tories got 33.8k in 2017, Labour 12.6 k and LD 12.5k. In 2019, the LD's polled ten times what Labour got.
Yet the Miller site describes the seat as "In the 2019 general election, the data suggests that Witney will be a contest between Conservative and Labour". Which is manifest nonsense.
This isn't a piece of objective advice: it's simple Labour propaganda by @votetools "a political tech collective" - or fellow traveller for a bunch of neo-Marxists who want Britain out of the EU and more closely aligned with Putin
Miller - who claims to be a Remainer - should be ashamed to be associated with this transparent Corbynbite crap.
Lesson: get the anoraks to check it first.
Lesson - vote for the party you actually prefer, perhaps ?
I agree with that -- which is why the LibDems tactic of getting smaller parties to stand down in their target seats is so profoundly unpleasant and anti-democratic.
There will be some tactical voting -- but there are many people who want to vote Green, not LibDem. Or Plaid Cymru, not LibDem. They want to vote in a way that means they are true to themselves, and their beliefs.
The tactical voting charade is perfect for people who don't believe in anything positive.
That is how it comes across to the non fanatical average bloke / blokess in the street.
It is so negative. We aren't good enough to win. I know you are one of our competitors, please please please help us. They are nasty big boys, everyone must help us.
The reasons why this deal is so much worse than May's are obvious. Firstly it is seriously bad for NI, and especially for the union; the DUP is right that it's completely unacceptable that businesses will have to fill in export forms for trading within their own country. Secondly, it hands a loaded gun to the EU, since it removes the backstop as a fall back position if we can't agree an FTA with them; we'll be left with exactly the same weak position that got us to this mess on the Withdrawal Agreement, of having only the disaster of No Deal available as an alternative to whatever they deign to offer us. Under May's deal, the EU would have had to swallow the backstop, giving us complete access to the Single Market for goods for zero cost, and there was no way they'd have been happy to let that happen for long if at all. We on the other hand would have been 100% protected from any cliff-edge.
Funny how its just Remainers claiming the backstop is something that would be great for us. For the rest of us, removing the backstop was a priority and to claim the deal is worse because it has removed the backstop is rather self-defeating! Removing the backstop was the point.
What got us into this mess was our inability [due to Parliament] to walk away. With the backstop gone and a majority Parliament we would have that in the future talks.
As for blame, yes, I underestimated the credulousness of Leavers. I thought they'd be able to distinguish 'we will leave on the 31st October, do or die' from 'I will do my best to ensure we leave on the 31st October'. It seems they can't, so for the moment at least they trust Boris. We'll see how long that lasts, but it will get him through this election.
There is no difference. One is floral language but we understand politics and understand the former means "I will do my best" - and nobody can argue he hasn't.
May did not do her best, I don't believe Hunt would have done his best. Your and your fellow Remainers hang up on "do or die" and inability to comprehend it meant "I will do my best" rather than "I will literally die" is where you have gone wrong.
On the backstop I think we all have to accept there’s an honest difference of views and stop arguing over them. You and I take the view that walking away is credible and the damage limited; remainers do not. We both draw different conclusions from the same data.
There probably a name for the phenomenon in psychology.
I completely agree, but Nabavi is trying to say to people who opposed the backstop that someone elected on a pledge to remove the backstop, that the new deal is worse because it has abolished the backstop.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
It's literally illegal for the US government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for Medicare/aid and then the effect of the law is used to castigate them for being wasteful.
A magnificent double play by the Republicans.
I find it astonishing how frequently it’s the US that fails to have truly free markets that work for consumers. See also how uncompetitive and expensive their satellite and cable tv is, or how dominant Walmart is. We do the Adam Smith thing of REGULATED free markets much better than they do. Their concept of capitalism seems to be much more “winner takes all”.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
Also, UKIP scored about 1,500 votes last time - if the BXP don't field a candidate, where do those voters go?
I have a hunch that Farage will decide not to stand ANY candidates in this election. Of course he would have a problem rowing back from the selections already made (especially as candidates had to pay £100 for the privilege of being considered), but he's got that problem if he decides to concentrate on just a few key seats, and in some ways a complete stand-down is easier to justify. He can present it as a tactical retreat to concentrate on being a mass movement for a 'true' Brexit in the next stage of negotiations.
What does he get in return?
Nothing: he bides his time, keeps his brand pure, and avoids the humiliation of lots of lost deposits and nothing to show for it.
I have a hunch that Farage will decide not to stand ANY candidates in this election. Of course he would have a problem rowing back from the selections already made (especially as candidates had to pay £100 for the privilege of being considered), but he's got that problem if he decides to concentrate on just a few key seats, and in some ways a complete stand-down is easier to justify. He can present it as a tactical retreat to concentrate on being a mass movement for a 'true' Brexit in the next stage of negotiations.
My hunch is that he will stand candidates almost everywhere.
He really loves the attention and publicity. He thinks the Johnson deal is really bad, maybe better to remain and fight another day. It gives him and his party a long term purpose. It's all about people and their egos.
I simply don't believe 35.5 vs 24.3 (an 11.2% lead) can possibly mean that that the Tories will be short of a majority
You have the Tories 0.6% down on 2015 and Labour 4.7% down on 2015, but the Tories 14 seats down and Labour 14 seats down. That doesn't seem plausible.
It's very plausible those numbers could fail to deliver a Tory majority if their vote is heavily concentrated in particular areas.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
Trump is quite clear on America first and trade deals are a zero sum game for him, he needs the other side to lose. We have just seen what Johnson is willing to give (everything) in order to get a deal through.
If there is a Trump Johnson FTA it will be a huge loss to the UK.
In normal circumstances I would be quite content with a FTA with the US, but would have preferred that negotiated through the EU to give equality of negotiating power.
I agree on all that, except that Johnson won't be desperate in this case. I very much doubt if there will be an FTA with the US, but if there is it will take a long time, especially as Congress have to ratify it. Trump may well be history before we get anywhere near an agreement.
What's more worrying to me is the blatant self-harming anti-Americanism that the left indulge in. There are a hell of lot of good things in US healthcare innovations, and the attitude seems to be that somehow we shouldn't take advantage of them because - shock horror! - they might give some profit to US companies.
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
Now favoured by around three quarters of the US electorate.
That's different to negotiating drug prices, but it shows how left wing the Dems have become on healthcare, that the most conservative position is a public option.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
Well you could say the same about TBP and the Tories. The LD were assisted in B & R by greens and plaid doing similar.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
But we are just being told, by the media and C4 News, that Boris wants to sell the NHS off to Trump and his mates. Surely thats all it is.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
It's literally illegal for the US government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for Medicare/aid and then the effect of the law is used to castigate them for being wasteful.
A magnificent double play by the Republicans.
I find it astonishing how frequently it’s the US that fails to have truly free markets that work for consumers. See also how uncompetitive and expensive their satellite and cable tv is, or how dominant Walmart is. We do the Adam Smith thing of REGULATED free markets much better than they do. Their concept of capitalism seems to be much more “winner takes all”.
Haha even a 11% lead isnt enough for a tory majority in your model? Really? What sort of lead would it take?
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
The national polls won't be showing the tactical voting effect (yet). It would show up in a constituency poll when people are asked about the specific choice they have, ideally with names as well as parties. So I calculate the tactical voting effect after the change in national share effect.
In the few constituency polls that are available, Cambridge and NE Somerset, my model predictions are not way out of line.
It has, and it’s a really helpful framework for debate - thank you for sharing it. The more models and ideas to debate the better.
So we have had two tactical voting websites mentioned so far, one of which seems to default to “Vote LD” and the other to “Vote Labour”. Are they going to end up cancelling out?
To be fair, I think the Miller one defaults to whoever came second to the Tories. Hence vote Labour in Woking and Lib Dem in Guildford.
It's still not great to be honest.
It's far worse than "not great". In Witney, the Tories got 33.8k in 2017, Labour 12.6 k and LD 12.5k. In 2019, the LD's polled ten times what Labour got.
Yet the Miller site describes the seat as "In the 2019 general election, the data suggests that Witney will be a contest between Conservative and Labour". Which is manifest nonsense.
This isn't a piece of objective advice: it's simple Labour propaganda by @votetools "a political tech collective" - or fellow traveller for a bunch of neo-Marxists who want Britain out of the EU and more closely aligned with Putin
Miller - who claims to be a Remainer - should be ashamed to be associated with this transparent Corbynbite crap.
Lesson: get the anoraks to check it first.
Lesson - vote for the party you actually prefer, perhaps ?
Either that or grow up and see that the Stop the Tories at all costs is infantile nonsense.
Based on history we still have social services, NHS, education etc. When they grow up they will win. Tony did.
Those who wanted to Remain but voted Leave to spite a posh Old Etonian Prime Minister - and there are people who self-confessedly did exactly that - must be feeling that, on reflection, they should have gone with their gut.
I simply don't believe 35.5 vs 24.3 (an 11.2% lead) can possibly mean that that the Tories will be short of a majority
You have the Tories 0.6% down on 2015 and Labour 4.7% down on 2015, but the Tories 14 seats down and Labour 14 seats down. That doesn't seem plausible.
It's very plausible those numbers could fail to deliver a Tory majority if their vote is heavily concentrated in particular areas.
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
It's literally illegal for the US government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for Medicare/aid and then the effect of the law is used to castigate them for being wasteful.
A magnificent double play by the Republicans.
I find it astonishing how frequently it’s the US that fails to have truly free markets that work for consumers. See also how uncompetitive and expensive their satellite and cable tv is, or how dominant Walmart is. We do the Adam Smith thing of REGULATED free markets much better than they do. Their concept of capitalism seems to be much more “winner takes all”.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
Also, UKIP scored about 1,500 votes last time - if the BXP don't field a candidate, where do those voters go?
Well quite. Do they stay at home, go Tory or go Tory/Labour (which is where most of them would have come from.)
Based on 2017 that gives JC lots of space to win by some margin.
What are you talking about? On those numbers, the Cons are holding 83.8% of their 2017 vote - Labour just 60.7%.
So for example in Chorley, which Labour won with Lindsay Hoyle by c7,500, on the same turnout as 2017 the Conservatives win with a majority of 800. Now, there was a big UKIP vote, and that might go back to Labour if a) that is where it came from and b) there is no Brexit Party candidate. But Barnesian can tell me if he's got the Cons winning Chorley in his model.....
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
Trump is quite clear on America first and trade deals are a zero sum game for him, he needs the other side to lose. We have just seen what Johnson is willing to give (everything) in order to get a deal through.
If there is a Trump Johnson FTA it will be a huge loss to the UK.
In normal circumstances I would be quite content with a FTA with the US, but would have preferred that negotiated through the EU to give equality of negotiating power.
I agree on all that, except that Johnson won't be desperate in this case. I very much doubt if there will be an FTA with the US, but if there is it will take a long time, especially as Congress have to ratify it. Trump may well be history before we get anywhere near an agreement.
What's more worrying to me is the blatant self-harming anti-Americanism that the left indulge in. There are a hell of lot of good things in US healthcare innovations, and the attitude seems to be that somehow we shouldn't take advantage of them because - shock horror! - they might give some profit to US companies.
If Warren or Sanders became US President after next year's elections and the Democrats held the House and won the Senate and introduced Medicare for all, the left might even back a US FTA, it is Trump and the GOP they oppose above all
I simply don't believe 35.5 vs 24.3 (an 11.2% lead) can possibly mean that that the Tories will be short of a majority
You have the Tories 0.6% down on 2015 and Labour 4.7% down on 2015, but the Tories 14 seats down and Labour 14 seats down. That doesn't seem plausible.
I think the model needs to be adjusted slightly to take into account possible tactical voting against *labour* if they are below 30%
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
I'd be interested to see any polling which shows what issues voters consider the most important. I am sure this is seen by the politicians as the Brexit election but is that really how the public sees it ?
I am not aware that a FTA is a requirement for us taking advantage of US healthcare innovations......lets buy those innovations at a price and under regulations under our control, until governments on both sides of the Atlantic are in a position and mindset to seek win-win trade agreements rather than zero sum adverserial ones.
An FTA isn't a requirement, but an open mind is. For example, if a US company offers to set up a diagnostic service here in the UK, using new technology which offers much better tests at a lower price than the NHS can provide, we'd have the Left screaming that it's 'privatisation', Tories selling off the crown jewels etc etc. That's why I said I was more worried by the anti-American attitude than anything to do with an FTA.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
Also, UKIP scored about 1,500 votes last time - if the BXP don't field a candidate, where do those voters go?
Well quite. Do they stay at home, go Tory or go Tory/Labour (which is where most of them would have come from.)
Or LibDem as protest votes, which is what many of them are.
Haha even a 11% lead isnt enough for a tory majority in your model? Really? What sort of lead would it take?
Con 36.6%, Lab 23.4% would give the Tories 327 seats. So a 13% lead would do it.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
13% a bare majority? With a 13% lead there is hardly any tactical voting going on against the tories, you haven't taken into account that?
The national polls won't be showing the tactical voting effect (yet). It would show up in a constituency poll when people are asked about the specific choice they have, ideally with names as well as parties. So I calculate the tactical voting effect after the change in national share effect.
In the few constituency polls that are available, Cambridge and NE Somerset, my model predictions are not way out of line.
Sure but that is surely a house effect, as Survation have the tories ahead "only" by 8%
Seems good to me. There is nothing there anyone sane in the UK could conceivably object to, unless they don't want US medical advances to be available here. I suppose Corbynistas would rather that people weren't treated well if the alternative is that - God forbid - a US company supplied the treatment.
"Procedural fairness" means that NICE can't use NHS clout to negotiate drug prices.
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
It's literally illegal for the US government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for Medicare/aid and then the effect of the law is used to castigate them for being wasteful.
A magnificent double play by the Republicans.
I find it astonishing how frequently it’s the US that fails to have truly free markets that work for consumers. See also how uncompetitive and expensive their satellite and cable tv is, or how dominant Walmart is. We do the Adam Smith thing of REGULATED free markets much better than they do. Their concept of capitalism seems to be much more “winner takes all”.
Might it be related to the billions of dollars that are raised for elections in the US and their reputation for pork barreling bills to help their lobbyist donors?
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
A Dem President might change that. Even the most centrist dem candidates are calling for that to change
Now favoured by around three quarters of the US electorate.
That's different to negotiating drug prices, but it shows how left wing the Dems have become on healthcare, that the most conservative position is a public option.
Not entirely - it’s more a measure of how fucked up US healthcare financing is that so many are in favour of it.
You’re right on the particular issue of pharmaceuticals (though it’s likely that any bill to introduce it would also address that point) - but they account for little more than 10% of US healthcare costs. A federal agency negotiating with providers could have a dramatic impact.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
But this assumes that all, or most, of their votes would go to the labour candidate and it also takes their voters for granted.
Also, UKIP scored about 1,500 votes last time - if the BXP don't field a candidate, where do those voters go?
Well quite. Do they stay at home, go Tory or go Tory/Labour (which is where most of them would have come from.)
According to Wiki, the Liberal Party are intending to field a candidate. Bless them.
Whilst true (didn't this happen in the previous GE, with the post-UKIP vote going to Labour?), I would expect it to manifest in the polls. It has not (yet?) done so and Con keeps climbing. Unless something changes in the next month , were going to have to consider betting Con Maj.
Interesting news about the Greens in Calder Valley, which is a hyper marginal.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
In spite of being a hyper marginal, my predictions for Calder valley are:
Con 22,726 Lab 17,750 LD 8,700 BXP 7,155
This a good example of where the LD resurgence allows the Tories to come through the middle in spite of my assumption that 35% of LibDems will tactically vote Labour if LDs were way behind in 2017, which they were.
Comments
Con 35.5% (+0.6)
Lab 24.3% (-0.1)
LD 18.4% (+0.1)
BXP 11.7% (-0.5)
Con 316 (+4)
Lab 218 (-4)
LD 46 (-)
Boris is a lucky general.
No real conversation on the environment, on Britains future in the world, what education we need, what problems we can solve quickly and cheaply and a plan for tackling the harder problems (left behind towns, elderly care, management of immigration)
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1189878413059874816?s=20
'Votes for foreigners' is particularly good.
1. Brexit Party have an enormous problem (but also potentially an opportunity) with female voters - close to 20% with middle aged men, close to zero with middle aged women.
2. Labour still doing well with younger groups, and Lib Dems less well than you might expect with a relatively youthful leader (albeit not in the age bracket) and a youth-friendly Brexit policy. I wonder if we might see that shift a bit over the campaign - Corbyn is not likely to be the "flavour of the month" choice he was in 2017 and there's an opportunity for Tories and Lib Dems there.
3. Interesting to see the Lib Dems leading (narrowly) with middle aged women. Perhaps not surprising given their leader is a fully paid up member of that group. Again, it will be fascinating to see if the Lib Dems build on that or other parties can bite into it - the retirements of some senior female politicians in that group does play into a narrative that might move the group towards the Lib Dems and other smaller parties.
Corbyn's problem is that he's an unpatriotic socialist. I think he'd probably do well in the current climate, even despite his old-fashioned socialist economic ideas, if he wasn't regarded as someone who hates what Britain stands for.
In fact the two of them standing together saying pretty much anything is true / not true is likely to make a lot of people think the reverse must be the case.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/10/boris-johnson-brexit-ireland-leo-varadkar/600925/
You can make arguments for or against extending the franchise in that manner. But to suggest an equivalence between it and support for terrorism shows a remarkably xenophobic, and rather unhinged, approach to political debate.
I also just think this level of hyperbole will backfire on the Conservatives. Pinning specific instances of being weak on antisemitism in Labour strikes me as potentially effective, whereas screaming "terrorist!!!!" at a man in his 70s seems unlikely to win new people over, and feels more like preaching to the choir.
The second para is a factual statement but is not particularly relevant to the point we're chewing over.
helpful, huh.
The impact will be felt much slower, due to their non-campaigning pushing them from the front of people's minds. There will still be plenty of people disappointed when they enter the polling booths.
Remember there are a lot of SNP and LD seats. It's not just the lead over Labour.
Even with a 13% lead in my example, the Tories are still 8% points down on 2017 where they got 43.4%. Lead over Labour isn't everything.
If there is a Trump Johnson FTA it will be a huge loss to the UK.
In normal circumstances I would be quite content with a FTA with the US, but would have preferred that negotiated through the EU to give equality of negotiating power.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices.
In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices.
The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Negotiating_Objectives.pdf
Odd Mr Wintour hasn't tweeted the bits about upholding Labour rights and environmental protection....
There is a reason that US health costs are at least twice as high as ours per capita.
A case in point - I don’t know what it’s like round where you live but all of our automated car washes have closed in favour of cheaper (and better) manned versions. One can legitimately question whether they all pay the minimum wage but let’s assume it is properly enforced - at some point the pricing must mean the automated ones reopen and those jobs are lost.
That’s not a bad thing for everyone if you also have policies on training and upskilling, but at some point you’re left with a permanently unemployed group of people because there’s no unskilled jobs left.
Based on history we still have social services, NHS, education etc. When they grow up they will win. Tony did.
What got us into this mess was our inability [due to Parliament] to walk away. With the backstop gone and a majority Parliament we would have that in the future talks. There is no difference. One is floral language but we understand politics and understand the former means "I will do my best" - and nobody can argue he hasn't.
May did not do her best, I don't believe Hunt would have done his best. Your and your fellow Remainers hang up on "do or die" and inability to comprehend it meant "I will do my best" rather than "I will literally die" is where you have gone wrong.
The Greens are standing aside in favour of Labour. The Greens got about 600 votes in 2017 in that seat. Might make the difference between the Tory being re-elected or being defeated!
If the Brexit Party stood in a tiny proportion of seats only, pollsters would need to take a view - it'd be silly to have them polling 10-15% when such a totally would be literally impossible even if they got 100% everywhere they stood.
I still think Farage would be crazy to withdraw from a high proportion of seats. He will get his message out in Thurrock (or wherever) not principally by leaflets there but by having his big faces constantly on the telly. But as soon as he retreats to a few seats, his case for broadcast parity (or anything like it) goes off a cliff.
There probably a name for the phenomenon in psychology.
There will be some tactical voting -- but there are many people who want to vote Green, not LibDem. Or Plaid Cymru, not LibDem. They want to vote in a way that means they are true to themselves, and their beliefs.
The tactical voting charade is perfect for people who don't believe in anything positive.
I simply don't believe 35.5 vs 24.3 (an 11.2% lead) can possibly mean that that the Tories will be short of a majority
You have the Tories 0.6% down on 2015 and Labour 4.7% down on 2015, but the Tories 14 seats down and Labour 14 seats down. That doesn't seem plausible.
A magnificent double play by the Republicans.
It would show up in a constituency poll when people are asked about the specific choice they have, ideally with names as well as parties.
So I calculate the tactical voting effect after the change in national share effect.
In the few constituency polls that are available, Cambridge and NE Somerset, my model predictions are not way out of line.
But I haven't made my own model so I dont want to sound too harsh
What's more worrying to me is the blatant self-harming anti-Americanism that the left indulge in. There are a hell of lot of good things in US healthcare innovations, and the attitude seems to be that somehow we shouldn't take advantage of them because - shock horror! - they might give some profit to US companies.
It is so negative. We aren't good enough to win. I know you are one of our competitors, please please please help us. They are nasty big boys, everyone must help us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
Now favoured by around three quarters of the US electorate.
He really loves the attention and publicity.
He thinks the Johnson deal is really bad, maybe better to remain and fight another day.
It gives him and his party a long term purpose.
It's all about people and their egos.
So for example in Chorley, which Labour won with Lindsay Hoyle by c7,500, on the same turnout as 2017 the Conservatives win with a majority of 800. Now, there was a big UKIP vote, and that might go back to Labour if a) that is where it came from and b) there is no Brexit Party candidate. But Barnesian can tell me if he's got the Cons winning Chorley in his model.....
With Labour 5.6% down on 2015
But you've got the Tories winning fewer seats than they did in 2015, despite a more than 3% swing from Labour to Tory? How?
You’re right on the particular issue of pharmaceuticals (though it’s likely that any bill to introduce it would also address that point) - but they account for little more than 10% of US healthcare costs. A federal agency negotiating with providers could have a dramatic impact.
Con 22,726
Lab 17,750
LD 8,700
BXP 7,155
This a good example of where the LD resurgence allows the Tories to come through the middle in spite of my assumption that 35% of LibDems will tactically vote Labour if LDs were way behind in 2017, which they were.