Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How sensitive are the poll figures?

SystemSystem Posts: 12,171
edited November 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How sensitive are the poll figures?

Let’s take a step back from the day-to-day swings and look at the overall picture, focused on the likelihood of a Conservative overall majority (I’m not going to look here at changes between the opposition parties). The result at the last election was 

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ...You mean no one knows what is going to happen. A Labour minority Govt seems the most unlikely of all the propositions, but we will see.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2019
    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.
  • I think there are several assumptions you are making which are questionable. Alas.

    Firstly, UNS. In general I'm a defender of UNS for seat totals as being broadly right. However I think that's less likely to be true when the change in the Labour share is so large. There is also reason to suspect that the change will be highly non-uniform, but will be greater where the Leave vote was stronger. Both of these factors favour greater Tory gains.

    On tactical voting I suspect that there will be net less tactical voting. The relative strength of the Liberal Democrats makes it harder, as do the higher unfavourable ratings for Corbyn.

    Also, the differential tactical voting. There will be more Brexit to Con tactical voting because UKIP were squeezed to nothing by polling day.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Are you crowdfunding it?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,234
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,234
    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Well I have and I know what I'm talking about, ta.

    It revolts me. There is next-to-no social provision. When did you ever see an old person in Singapore? No, me neither.

    It's a money making machine. It's not Britain.

    So if he wins, I'm out.
  • I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
  • Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.

  • rcs1000 said:


    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.

    Being a damn sight smaller than London probably helps with the public transport thing (although not for other cities in Britain).
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Just went back to the last thread and you're right: excellent stuff.

    I had to pick up this part of the discussion though as I had the strangest feeling. It was deja vu. Something eerily eerily flashback. Like straight out of 2017. We had all this then. London was going Tory. Scotland too. The Labour heartlands were turning blue. Think the unthinkable. Theresa May taking her bus to places no Tory had ever won.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2019

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    I sometimes wonder if we now see floating voters as tactical voters. Is it just a change of name for someone who votes according to the situation as they see it?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.
    Not to mention the tax on car imports that makes a VW Golf cost $100,000

    Nor the tax on the £20 pint of beer.

    Also the fact that 80% of Singaporeans live in subsidised public housing but own their own apartment.
    https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singaporeans-live-in-government-built-flats

    And a compulsory state pension system that even accrues to foreign residents
    https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/singapore-has-best-pension-system-in-asia-mercer-index
  • Good morning all.

    Latest reported YouGov.

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1190764096007942144

    Given the scale of those swings, I wonder whether YouGov have changed their methodology? Their prompting for the Greens and (to an extent) the Brexit Party differs from most other companies and up to now has contributed to a Green vote share well in excess of that of other companies. They may have ceased such prompting. The alternative is that there has been a big shift in opinion. We will see.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    edited November 2019

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Another point is even if the number of tactical voters has stayed similar, the constituency proportions change with every election and the national outlook changes. This can change the way in which the same tactical voters will vote in the same constituency, because they er... vote tactically.

    My prediction is that tactical voting will have a noticeable effect. That the number of Labour seats will not drop much, even if their national vote share drops to the low twenties. The reason: tactical voting in seats that are clear Con/Lab fights.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.
    Of course it’s not a system you’d import wholesale somewhere else, no system is, but much of the British press and leftist commentators are trying to make it out as some capitalist hellhole which doesn’t match the reality.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    F1: ha. Well, Bottas *did* get pole. Ah well.

    Will try and get the pre-qualifying thing up in an hour or so.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.
  • Just a weak smear. If it had any truth about it, it would have been deployed when Boris took office. Corbyn's adviser Milne is an on the record Russian stooge, no confected outrage about that.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    philiph said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    I sometimes wonder if we now see floating voters as tactical voters. Is it just a change of name for someone who votes according to the situation as they see it?
    A floating voter is one who is prepared to change their vote each election, so in that sense tactical voters are a subset of floating voters. But a reporter usually means by "floating voter", someone who follows the national zeitgeist. A bellwether-state on an individual level. Tactical voters are certainly not bellwether voters.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.
    Of course it’s not a system you’d import wholesale somewhere else, no system is, but much of the British press and leftist commentators are trying to make it out as some capitalist hellhole which doesn’t match the reality.

    Singapore is far from being a free-for-all, capitalist hell hole, I agree. It’s actually very statist. The government is very involved in just about everything. I think a lot of right-wing commentators ignore that. There are an awful lot of rules in Singapore and a very high degree of social conformity. It’s clean, clever and pretty boring!! I’ve always preferred Hong Kong. Though that has its own dreadful problems, too, of course.

  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.
    Not to mention the tax on car imports that makes a VW Golf cost $100,000

    Nor the tax on the £20 pint of beer.

    Also the fact that 80% of Singaporeans live in subsidised public housing but own their own apartment.
    https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singaporeans-live-in-government-built-flats

    And a compulsory state pension system that even accrues to foreign residents
    https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/singapore-has-best-pension-system-in-asia-mercer-index

    The Singapore-on-Thames gang always ignore the subsidised housing. Can’t think why!!

  • Good morning all.

    Latest reported YouGov.

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1190764096007942144

    Given the scale of those swings, I wonder whether YouGov have changed their methodology? Their prompting for the Greens and (to an extent) the Brexit Party differs from most other companies and up to now has contributed to a Green vote share well in excess of that of other companies. They may have ceased such prompting. The alternative is that there has been a big shift in opinion. We will see.

    The question will have changed. "How will you vote in the General Election on 12 December " rather than "how would you vote if there was a general election tomorrow?"If you ask people a real, rather than obviously fictitious, question, their answers will change. For example, people stop bigging up Brexit (as they did in the Euros) and tell you how they will actually vote in a General Election.
  • FPT re LD gains - they are a very short price to win Cambridge.

    https://twitter.com/philrodgers/status/1190256823909208065?s=21
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.
    Of course it’s not a system you’d import wholesale somewhere else, no system is, but much of the British press and leftist commentators are trying to make it out as some capitalist hellhole which doesn’t match the reality.
    I thought the argument was rather that a small city state in Asia is an absurd model for us to attempt to emulate on virtually any metric. And those arguing for it don’t really have much of a clue what they are arguing for.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,234
    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.

    The Conservative party doesn't want the LibDems squeezed below 10%. They want the LibDems to be on about 15%, because that is almost all at the expense of Labour. And there are a lot of Lab/Con marginals.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,234
    PagetVC said:

    FPT re LD gains - they are a very short price to win Cambridge.

    https://twitter.com/philrodgers/status/1190256823909208065?s=21

    The LibDems might win Cambridge. But I think they're much more likely to get a result in Cambridgeshire South.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.

    Nor the tax on the £20 pint of beer.

    I've been there twice in recent months, beer is entirely reasonably priced, can get a Tiger for $4 if you're willing to go to normal bars and foodcourts. It may be more pricy in the Fullerton or Raffles I accept.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    FTPT
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mayor Pete polling in the last 3 national polls at 2%, 4% and 8%, with Warren at 3 times that score:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

    The only polling that is close is the Iowa ones, but there Warren is polling better. In the other early contests Buttigeig is not in the running.

    Warren certainly has detailed plans and policies vulnerable to fisking, while Buttigeig specialises in vague waffle, but how long is that sustainable?

    The latest New Hampshire poll has him in double digits. He's got the big mo.
    S Carolina is his problem. But it will be a nice problem to have if he wins in Iowa.
    Indeed.

    I see Buttigieg and Warren as being roughly 45% shots apiece for Iowa. Buttigieg absolutely has to win it. Warren, so long as she's a good second, can afford to lose.

    The really interesting question is what happens if Biden places third or worse in both Iowa and New Hampshire. His selling point is that he's a winner. And I think if you take that away, there's not much there.
    I am hoping Biden finishes 3rd in Iowa and becomes odds on favourite.

    #lightningstrikestwice
  • rcs1000 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.

    The Conservative party doesn't want the LibDems squeezed below 10%. They want the LibDems to be on about 15%, because that is almost all at the expense of Labour. And there are a lot of Lab/Con marginals.

    The Workington constituency poll was very interesting for many reasons. One was just how low the LDs were polling. It may indicate they are polling far, far higher in other parts of the country.

  • Banterman said:

    Just a weak smear. If it had any truth about it, it would have been deployed when Boris took office. Corbyn's adviser Milne is an on the record Russian stooge, no confected outrage about that.
    Didn’t Mrs Clinton try a similar approach in the US ? Labour should borrow from abroad tactics that actually work.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
    Tory remainers want to stop Brexit , but the thought of Corbyn is likely to make them vote Tory, In my constituency it won't make any difference as Nick Herbert has a massive majority. The LD's don't have a chance there.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.
    Of course it’s not a system you’d import wholesale somewhere else, no system is, but much of the British press and leftist commentators are trying to make it out as some capitalist hellhole which doesn’t match the reality.
    I thought the argument was rather that a small city state in Asia is an absurd model for us to attempt to emulate on virtually any metric. And those arguing for it don’t really have much of a clue what they are arguing for.
    It's just absurd to compare a large post industrial state like the UK, cutting itself off from its major markets, and with major structural economic problems with Singapore. The future is more like Pefonist Argentina.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    If you want to make 10% on yr money in 5 weeks Diane Abbott is 1/10 to hold her seat....nobody will beat her there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    Speaking of public transport, I don’t think this has been commented on although the Beeb did pick up on it briefly:
    https://twitter.com/tonyberkeley1/status/1190562242581938176
    Now, if Berkeley is telling the truth (a fairly big if) this means the following:

    1) The review has concluded
    2) The report will not be published this side of the election, so it will be delayed
    3) The very bitter and angry tone of his tweet suggests he has been overruled on the conclusions. Given his extremely vicious and indeed visceral anti-HS2 views, that would almost certainly mean that Oakervee will recommend HS2 should go ahead as planned.

    If therefore the report is leaked in the campaign that might put the Tories under pressure in some Home Counties seats, but should also see them clean up in the Midlands, especially Birmingham.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Classic Tory newspaper strategy claiming Corbyn can win to scare people back to the tories.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)

    I have been to Singapore a number of times. I think it’s very sweet that anyone believes it is a model that can be emulated in the UK, but I do look forward to the Tories trying - especially against a post-Brexit backdrop. Singapore began with next to nothing. It was, to all intents and purposes, a small, clean sheet of paper with no established socio-economic system, political make-up or even sense of itself. What was built was remarkable, but nothing was replaced, almost no-one lost out. That does not apply to the UK.
    Of course it’s not a system you’d import wholesale somewhere else, no system is, but much of the British press and leftist commentators are trying to make it out as some capitalist hellhole which doesn’t match the reality.
    Is it the state housing, the state pension or the public transport system that you propose implementing in the UK?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    An interesting header Nick though not the encouraging one I'd hoped for when I saw your name underneath it.

    The question it raises for Labour supporters like myself is why you and others like you didn't tell Corbyn what was obvious; That if he remained leader Labour would lose but if he passed the mantle to someone else the chances were good that we could have a Labour government?


    Surely someone with your and his principles would want to put the party's interest before his personal ambition?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    edited November 2019

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    For someone like myself who dreads the prospect of a cutthroat Singapore-on-Thames where there is no provision for anyone except money makers, the disadvantaged are downtrodden and social provision is dismantled, this is all terribly depressing.

    Despite what Square Root disparagingly remarked, I'm planning my exit from Brexit. Actually, call that exit from Boris.

    Most UK commentators who are droning on about the “Singaporean Nightmare”, have clearly never been within a thousand miles of the place.

    (Great discussion about constituency seat markets at the end of the last thread BTW, some great tips there and PB at its best 👍)
    Singaporean public transport is a nightmare.

    For car manufacturers.

    Nor the tax on the £20 pint of beer.

    I've been there twice in recent months, beer is entirely reasonably priced, can get a Tiger for $4 if you're willing to go to normal bars and foodcourts. It may be more pricy in the Fullerton or Raffles I accept.
    Ha, we obviously went to different bars then! I thought drinks in Dubai were expensive before I went to Singapore, we would chase happy hours around to avoid paying full price anywhere. Yes £20 was in a nice hotel on Orchard Rd, but £10-15 beers were everywhere in the centre and tourist spots.
  • nichomar said:

    Classic Tory newspaper strategy claiming Corbyn can win to scare people back to the tories.

    Yes there’s a marked difference in headlines from the newspapers now than there was in 2017.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited November 2019

    I think there are several assumptions you are making which are questionable. Alas.

    Firstly, UNS. In general I'm a defender of UNS for seat totals as being broadly right. However I think that's less likely to be true when the change in the Labour share is so large. There is also reason to suspect that the change will be highly non-uniform, but will be greater where the Leave vote was stronger. Both of these factors favour greater Tory gains.

    On tactical voting I suspect that there will be net less tactical voting. The relative strength of the Liberal Democrats makes it harder, as do the higher unfavourable ratings for Corbyn.

    Also, the differential tactical voting. There will be more Brexit to Con tactical voting because UKIP were squeezed to nothing by polling day.

    The counter-arguments:

    - UNS being bust might work against the Tories in the case of the LibDem vote, which is likely to rise the most in areas of past/local government strength and remain supporting, which outside London targets the Tories;

    - Whilst tactical voting toward Labour might reduce, greater distance from the coalition and their strong stance on Brexit make the LibDems more likely to attract Labour support where it matters;

    - with BXP down in single figures there is an argument to be made that most of those Tory leaning leavers are now already back in the Tory percentage. BXP’s appeal is now to those who think Labour isn’t Leave enough.

    There is also the long observed tendency of British electorates to be wary of large majorities and to swing back a little before a polling day when such an outcome looks likely.

    Personally I doubt that many votes actively switch to the opposition for fear of a large majority. My guess it that this tendency arises from a combination of “we’ve won anyway” abstainers - the guy who goes to the pub after work, or the couple making dinner on a wet evening, who decide not to bother voting since their side has won anyway - and people who go back to their original preference for a minor party now that the incoming government no longer needs their tactical vote.
  • Richardx9Richardx9 Posts: 10
    edited November 2019


    ‘The Singapore-on-Thames gang always ignore the subsidised housing. Can’t think why!!’



    Yes never understood why the apparent hatred for this supposedly terrible Singaporean model.

    Mass provision of government housing which ensures all ethnic groups are mixed together so you get integration not segregation. Thus promoting a strong national identity as well - so there is little or no ethnic or religious division.

    Almost no street crime or indeed any crime. It’s very safe - no shootings, stabbings or acid attacks. Mums don’t live in fear when their kids go out unlike some of our cities

    Limited drug problem - yes the policies are harsh but it works for them. We just let the drug users die instead. No public drunkenness or general chavvy/bad behaviour.

    No homeless on the street - and no beggars - perhaps partly to do with the effective public housing provision.

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more needy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    People are polite and helpful

    As for supposed lack of old people - well like London they aren’t hanging about the bars in the CBD but in their state flats. Our social care system is hardly effective!

    They even have Marks and spencer, Virgin active and fitness first gyms and their shopping parades are full of UK brands and shops.

    Singapore is far from perfect but it’s certainly not all bad! But if you enjoy lots of crime in the inner cities, poor infrastructure, dirty streets, poor overpriced public transport and a lack of decent Public housing provision while the rich live in relative luxury - the UK has its merits too!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.


    Always remember that the theory behind UNS is of a two-party system where the government is less popular than it was.

    If those conditions don’t apply, there is no reason why the model should work.
  • eristdoof said:


    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Sure, but the messages the tribalists push do at least somewhat percolate out to weaker supporters. At least I *think* they do, much as I love the idea that they're all blathering on about Tory Swinson or whatever only to have zero effect on anybody outside their facebook group.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    rcs1000 said:
    Looks like he's standing in a Weathespoons during a rugby internatioal
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    eristdoof said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Another point is even if the number of tactical voters has stayed similar, the constituency proportions change with every election and the national outlook changes. This can change the way in which the same tactical voters will vote in the same constituency, because they er... vote tactically.

    My prediction is that tactical voting will have a noticeable effect. That the number of Labour seats will not drop much, even if their national vote share drops to the low twenties. The reason: tactical voting in seats that are clear Con/Lab fights.

    There are millions of "never Labour" who vote too. A signiicant proportion of them want Brexit to go away.

    Jo Swinson's "let's just revoke" is not seen as realistic - if only because this is the LibDems we're talking. Even if they massively exceeded on the upside and got 100 seats, they are still the junior partner in any coalition - and that might be with the loathed Corbyn. But whoever it is, Swinson is still seeking to impose the very niche idea of revoking Article 50 as "her price".

    Let's get real - they won't succeed with revoking Article 50. So the "never Labour" voter is faced with the unrealistic Swinson versus Boris's Deal. Boris's Deal is the best shot in their mind at making Brexit go away as an issue in their lives. So Boris's Deal it is.

    (Similar logic applies to the "Never Tories" too. The LibDems are still the junior partner in any coalition - and that might be with the loathed Boris. So Corbyn it is.)
  • ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    IanB2 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.


    Always remember that the theory behind UNS is of a two-party system where the government is less popular than it was.

    If those conditions don’t apply, there is no reason why the model should work.
    Does anyone have a link to where you can bet on the outcomes in individual seats? Because I think that’s where the money is to be made here if anyone is interested. The overall seat count is just too volatile and subject to too many random factors.
  • nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
    Tory remainers want to stop Brexit , but the thought of Corbyn is likely to make them vote Tory, In my constituency it won't make any difference as Nick Herbert has a massive majority. The LD's don't have a chance there.
    I think you have hit a nail on the head with "Tory remainers want to stop Brexit". Certainly Non Tory remainers want to stop Brexit, but Tory Remainers ???

    No, I don't think they do. And that is one of the reasons why Swinson's message is so poorly received.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    IanB2 said:

    I think there are several assumptions you are making which are questionable. Alas.

    Firstly, UNS. In general I'm a defender of UNS for seat totals as being broadly right. However I think that's less likely to be true when the change in the Labour share is so large. There is also reason to suspect that the change will be highly non-uniform, but will be greater where the Leave vote was stronger. Both of these factors favour greater Tory gains.

    On tactical voting I suspect that there will be net less tactical voting. The relative strength of the Liberal Democrats makes it harder, as do the higher unfavourable ratings for Corbyn.

    Also, the differential tactical voting. There will be more Brexit to Con tactical voting because UKIP were squeezed to nothing by polling day.

    The counter-arguments:

    - UNS being bust might work against the Tories in the case of the LibDem vote, which is likely to rise the most in areas of past/local government strength and remain supporting, which outside London targets the Tories;

    -l(snip) - and people who go back to their original preference for a minor party now that the incoming government no longer needs their tactical vote.
    The last point is an interesting one, tactical unwind when felt to no longer be nessecary. I shall think more on it.

    As things stand at present, and of course we have a lot more volatility than previous years, I am inclined to back UNS and Con on about 350 seats. The areas under swinging are balanced by those over swinging in others when looking at so many seats.

    Tactical voting made a big difference in 1997, doubling LD seats, and probably helped as much in Lab seats. It took place after a period of amicability between the two parties, and the policy differences between Ashdown and Blair were modest. There was also a feeling that after 18 years of the Tories a feeling that joint action was needed to boot them out. I don't sense those factors in play to the same degree at the moment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    Richardx9 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
    It’s what I do, Richard, as you will doubtless have noticed. :smiley:

    Many years ago I was on a training course, given a policy on communications as an exemplar and told to read it and comment on it. After three lines I had five spelling mistakes, two punctuation errors and numerous grammatical howlers.

    So I spent the whole fifteen minutes correcting it. So when she asked for feedback it suddenly dawned on me I hadn’t a clue what the actual content was.

    Edit - in my defence, yesterday I had a rather miserable time on public transport and essentially had to stand from Victoria to Warwick Parkway. So my flippancy was partly due to current events.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    eristdoof said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Another point is even if the number of tactical voters has stayed similar, the constituency proportions change with every election and the national outlook changes. This can change the way in which the same tactical voters will vote in the same constituency, because they er... vote tactically.

    My prediction is that tactical voting will have a noticeable effect. That the number of Labour seats will not drop much, even if their national vote share drops to the low twenties. The reason: tactical voting in seats that are clear Con/Lab fights.

    Whilst most tactical voters aren’t activists, it is wrong to say that activists aren’t prepared to vote tactically. Activists may care the most about their own party, but they also care the most about seeing their main rival defeated. Activists know the local candidates (which can cut both ways) and care about the internal battles within their own party, both of which can make it easier to drop a tactical vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Another point is even if the number of tactical voters has stayed similar, the constituency proportions change with every election and the national outlook changes. This can change the way in which the same tactical voters will vote in the same constituency, because they er... vote tactically.

    My prediction is that tactical voting will have a noticeable effect. That the number of Labour seats will not drop much, even if their national vote share drops to the low twenties. The reason: tactical voting in seats that are clear Con/Lab fights.

    Whilst most tactical voters aren’t activists, it is wrong to say that activists aren’t prepared to vote tactically. Activists may care the most about their own party, but they also care the most about seeing their main rival defeated. Activists know the local candidates (which can cut both ways) and care about the internal battles within their own party, both of which can make it easier to drop a tactical vote.
    In the 2017 Richmond Park by-election, I seem to remember the Labour candidate got fewer votes than there were active Labour Party members in the constituency.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited November 2019
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think there are several assumptions you are making which are questionable. Alas.

    Firstly, UNS. In general I'm a defender of UNS for seat totals as being broadly right. However I think that's less likely to be true when the change in the Labour share is so large. There is also reason to suspect that the change will be highly non-uniform, but will be greater where the Leave vote was stronger. Both of these factors favour greater Tory gains.

    On tactical voting I suspect that there will be net less tactical voting. The relative strength of the Liberal Democrats makes it harder, as do the higher unfavourable ratings for Corbyn.

    Also, the differential tactical voting. There will be more Brexit to Con tactical voting because UKIP were squeezed to nothing by polling day.

    The counter-arguments:

    - UNS being bust might work against the Tories in the case of the LibDem vote, which is likely to rise the most in areas of past/local government strength and remain supporting, which outside London targets the Tories;

    -l(snip) - and people who go back to their original preference for a minor party now that the incoming government no longer needs their tactical vote.
    The last point is an interesting one, tactical unwind when felt to no longer be nessecary. I shall think more on it.

    As things stand at present, and of course we have a lot more volatility than previous years, I am inclined to back UNS and Con on about 350 seats. The areas under swinging are balanced by those over swinging in others when looking at so many seats.

    Tactical voting made a big difference in 1997, doubling LD seats, and probably helped as much in Lab seats. It took place after a period of amicability between the two parties, and the policy differences between Ashdown and Blair were modest. There was also a feeling that after 18 years of the Tories a feeling that joint action was needed to boot them out. I don't sense those factors in play to the same degree at the moment.
    In addition to that factor above, there are people decided to vote tactically, and tell pollsters such, then when they get into the polling booth can’t go through with it, when they see the logo they normally put their X against, or the name of the person they usually support. I am sure more people tell pollsters they intend to vote tactically than actually go through with it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613

    rcs1000 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.

    The Conservative party doesn't want the LibDems squeezed below 10%. They want the LibDems to be on about 15%, because that is almost all at the expense of Labour. And there are a lot of Lab/Con marginals.

    The Workington constituency poll was very interesting for many reasons. One was just how low the LDs were polling. It may indicate they are polling far, far higher in other parts of the country.

    Won't be too surprised to find the Libdems munching into 20-30k Labour majorities in inner cities. London, Liverpool, Manchster, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle - but it doesn't tell you much about the marginals.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2019

    nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
    Tory remainers want to stop Brexit , but the thought of Corbyn is likely to make them vote Tory, In my constituency it won't make any difference as Nick Herbert has a massive majority. The LD's don't have a chance there.
    I think you have hit a nail on the head with "Tory remainers want to stop Brexit". Certainly Non Tory remainers want to stop Brexit, but Tory Remainers ???

    No, I don't think they do. And that is one of the reasons why Swinson's message is so poorly received.
    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited November 2019
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Activists aren't the tactical voters, but activists are only a small proportion of the population. What proportion are tactical voters? I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does. I do know that there are millions of "Never Tories" who vote.

    Another point is even if the number of tactical voters has stayed similar, the constituency proportions change with every election and the national outlook changes. This can change the way in which the same tactical voters will vote in the same constituency, because they er... vote tactically.

    My prediction is that tactical voting will have a noticeable effect. That the number of Labour seats will not drop much, even if their national vote share drops to the low twenties. The reason: tactical voting in seats that are clear Con/Lab fights.

    Whilst most tactical voters aren’t activists, it is wrong to say that activists aren’t prepared to vote tactically. Activists may care the most about their own party, but they also care the most about seeing their main rival defeated. Activists know the local candidates (which can cut both ways) and care about the internal battles within their own party, both of which can make it easier to drop a tactical vote.
    In the 2017 Richmond Park by-election, I seem to remember the Labour candidate got fewer votes than there were active Labour Party members in the constituency.
    Yes indeed. And during my six times elected as a councillor in London, there were Labour members voting for me every time - even 2014 during the coalition. I found the same canvassing in Portsmouth during the coalition. Some people hate the Tories that much ;)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Betfair Sports book of SNP under 51.5 @2.1 looks mighty tempting
  • Richardx9 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
    I like to think that pb.com is a safe refuge for pedants who are unfairly maligned and reviled elsewhere on the web.

    In Edinburgh people are generally much nicer about letting other people onto public transport first. I've even had a few "no *you* first" battles. One exception is at the stops by Waverley Steps (just outside the station bringing passengers from London).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
    It’s what I do, Richard, as you will doubtless have noticed. :smiley:

    Many years ago I was on a training course, given a policy on communications as an exemplar and told to read it and comment on it. After three lines I had five spelling mistakes, two punctuation errors and numerous grammatical howlers.

    So I spent the whole fifteen minutes correcting it. So when she asked for feedback it suddenly dawned on me I hadn’t a clue what the actual content was.

    Edit - in my defence, yesterday I had a rather miserable time on public transport and essentially had to stand from Victoria to Warwick Parkway. So my flippancy was partly due to current events.
    Your feedback was that a document with so many howlers caused people to zone out about the content. A vital critique!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited November 2019

    nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
    Tory remainers want to stop Brexit , but the thought of Corbyn is likely to make them vote Tory, In my constituency it won't make any difference as Nick Herbert has a massive majority. The LD's don't have a chance there.
    I think you have hit a nail on the head with "Tory remainers want to stop Brexit". Certainly Non Tory remainers want to stop Brexit, but Tory Remainers ???

    No, I don't think they do. And that is one of the reasons why Swinson's message is so poorly received.
    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just that and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.
    I think Cumbria might have it - some Tory remainers have been telling pollsters they’ll be voting LibDem (again, like they did in the locals/Euros) but now the “big match” has started they have gone back to their own side.

    The question is whether something in the campaign, or the imminence of actual Brexit, or the looming inevitability of a big Bozo win, or Corbyn falling flat, or the defections of more prominent moderate Tories - makes those remainers give the LibDems another look?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2019
    edit one sec
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,212
    "Tactical" seems to be a byword for 'I'm voting Labour but don't want to seem like I'm supporting Corbyn just getting rid of the AWFUL Tories' most of the time.
  • nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    I think there probably will be on balance, but it's not really clear; Corbyn seems to be actively disliked in a way that he wasn't really last time, and Labour tribalists seem to hate Jo Swinson with a passion they couldn't really summon up against Tim Farron. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there could be *less* tactical voting, in which case you need to adjust in the opposite direction.
    Boris now has a positive net rating from two pollsters. Compared to minus a gazillion for Corbyn.

    We might be suprised at how many Tory REMAIN voters go back to Boris to stop Corbyn. I predict the Libdem vote to be further squeezed this week, and Tories to pick half of them.
    If the tories appear to be winning then no risk for Tory remainers voting Lib Dem. We also have to remember last election fought on brexit too. So labour switchers already been targeted once before. UNS may have a lot of discrepancies
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2019
    Okay, the original post from Richard on Singapore lacks blockquote. So anyway, I was merely wanting to say that the place is my idea of hell.

    I guess in a nutshell I'd point to the squeaky clean, uptight, lack of freedom in the place.

    It's just not chilled.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.


    Always remember that the theory behind UNS is of a two-party system where the government is less popular than it was.

    If those conditions don’t apply, there is no reason why the model should work.
    Does anyone have a link to where you can bet on the outcomes in individual seats? Because I think that’s where the money is to be made here if anyone is interested. The overall seat count is just too volatile and subject to too many random factors.
    Ladbrokes has a growing number of seats up. BFE also has a lot, although with hardly any money on them yet - when I looked yesterday most of the bets were from clever punters putting money up to tempt others into betting mistakes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
    It’s what I do, Richard, as you will doubtless have noticed. :smiley:

    Many years ago I was on a training course, given a policy on communications as an exemplar and told to read it and comment on it. After three lines I had five spelling mistakes, two punctuation errors and numerous grammatical howlers.

    So I spent the whole fifteen minutes correcting it. So when she asked for feedback it suddenly dawned on me I hadn’t a clue what the actual content was.

    Edit - in my defence, yesterday I had a rather miserable time on public transport and essentially had to stand from Victoria to Warwick Parkway. So my flippancy was partly due to current events.
    Your feedback was that a document with so many howlers caused people to zone out about the content. A vital critique!
    Yes, but I proceeded to comprehensively bugger things up. I was asked for feedback and I went to town on these errors, saying how awful the document was and how the person who had written it was effectively showing contempt for the readers.

    There was this awful silence and then the very senior examiner convening the meeting said quietly, ‘I wrote this document, Dr.’
  • F1: pre-race ramble up soon.

    I do think Verstappen's still value for the win (enhanced) at 4.33. However, if you backed my early tip on him each way at 10 (10.5 with boost), I'd suggest laying at 4.8 on Betfair.

    So, yes. I'm arguing that you should bet for or against Verstappen, depending on circumstance.

    And, for what it's worth (probably not much, but then I'm using tiny stakes) I've backed Leicester at evens to beat Crystal Palace and Spurs/Everton to draw at 3.5.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2019
    IanB2 said:

    nunu2 said:

    I mostly agree with this but being a little bit picky:

    How sensitive are these leads? Assume there is some tactical voting. I know that lots of us would not consider it, but it’s an objective fact that there are folk out there who do, and they mostly are either BXP->Con, Green->Lab or LD, or Lab->LD.

    We're looking at swings from last time, so they already assume there's some tactical voting. What we need to know is whether there will be more tactical voting than last time.

    .
    .
    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just that and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.
    I think Cumbria might have it - some Tory remainers have been telling pollsters they’ll be voting LibDem (again, like they did in the locals/Euros) but now the “big match” has started they have gone back to their own side.

    The question is whether something in the campaign, or the imminence of actual Brexit, or the looming inevitability of a big Bozo win, or Corbyn falling flat, or the defections of more prominent moderate Tories - makes those remainers give the LibDems another look?
    Interesting.

    Do you think the 'Revoke Article 50' has backfired? I sort-of-think it might have. It seemed to highlight that old adage that there's no one more illiberal than a liberal.

    But it may be more of what you and Cumbria are suggesting. Tribal loyalties resume now that it's no longer a hypothetical or meaningless election. 'How will you vote in the General Election on Dec 12th?' is suddenly very real.

    I'd add this: I was never comfortable about the way the Opposition were dicking around with Boris Johnson and the fag-end of Parliament. They appeared to be toying with him and in some respects it's quite amusing that they got their comeuppance. If someone like Johnson is in the corner you don't start giving it the Muhammed Ali shuffle.

    They had their chance and blew it. September 24th when Lady Hoyle delivered the Supreme Court verdict they almost certainly would have succeeded in a VONC if they'd got their joint act together.

    They didn't. The rest, as they say, is history.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richardx9 said:

    It’s clean with a cheap well run public transport system - only £1 to cross the entire island from west to east on the metro. They even have videos on the platforms to show you how to be a decent human being and let people off the train first so its makes it easier to get on and give up your seat for a more nerdy person - Londoners please learn the merits of the former!

    Welcome.

    I must confess I like this idea that nerdy people should have priority in seating on public transport.
    I had already amended that - it was a long post.

    But thanks for the welcome - and the observation of my initial spelling mistake. Cos commenting on that rather than content is always useful!
    It’s what I do, Richard, as you will doubtless have noticed. :smiley:

    Many years ago I was on a training course, given a policy on communications as an exemplar and told to read it and comment on it. After three lines I had five spelling mistakes, two punctuation errors and numerous grammatical howlers.

    So I spent the whole fifteen minutes correcting it. So when she asked for feedback it suddenly dawned on me I hadn’t a clue what the actual content was.

    Edit - in my defence, yesterday I had a rather miserable time on public transport and essentially had to stand from Victoria to Warwick Parkway. So my flippancy was partly due to current events.
    Your feedback was that a document with so many howlers caused people to zone out about the content. A vital critique!
    Yes, but I proceeded to comprehensively bugger things up. I was asked for feedback and I went to town on these errors, saying how awful the document was and how the person who had written it was effectively showing contempt for the readers.

    There was this awful silence and then the very senior examiner convening the meeting said quietly, ‘I wrote this document, Dr.’
    I'd say your point hit home!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Probably because he’s a pathological bloody liar.

    With apologies to Keith Waterhouse.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    ydoethur said:

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
    The LibDem's message as kingmaker though is "Let's kill the king!"
  • Pulpstar said:

    "Tactical" seems to be a byword for 'I'm voting Labour but don't want to seem like I'm supporting Corbyn just getting rid of the AWFUL Tories' most of the time.

    I think you underestimate some people's antipathy to the Tories and the practical difficulties created by FPTP.

    If we ever had STV, or some other PR system, the Labour Party share of the vote would collapse.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Good post on the LibDems below ydoethur. You're probably spot on I think.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
    The LibDem's message as kingmaker though is "Let's kill the king!"
    Well, TBF that’s a not unattractive message given who the current kings are.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Everyone is saying UNS cant possibly right.

    Tories wont possibly get such a large majority. Why?

    If libdems and Brexit party are squeezed to below 10% and tories maintain a lead of 12% than UNS is great again.


    Always remember that the theory behind UNS is of a two-party system where the government is less popular than it was.

    If those conditions don’t apply, there is no reason why the model should work.
    Does anyone have a link to where you can bet on the outcomes in individual seats? Because I think that’s where the money is to be made here if anyone is interested. The overall seat count is just too volatile and subject to too many random factors.
    Ladbrokes has a growing number of seats up. BFE also has a lot, although with hardly any money on them yet - when I looked yesterday most of the bets were from clever punters putting money up to tempt others into betting mistakes.
    Thanks. Still can’t find the one I’m looking for unfortunately, which is Stroud.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    edited November 2019
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Probably because he’s a pathological bloody liar.

    With apologies to Keith Waterhouse.
    Boris seems to be repeating Cameron’s mistake. He is so desperate to win he will make any promise, even if it costs him the ability to govern later.

    Reminds me of the AI in the ZX Spectrum of Monopoly, which was so desperate to complete a set it would trade you anything for the last card, including the two other cards it holds.

    The opposition should exploit this. Get Boris on the record with ever more outlandish claims. He can’t help himself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
    The LibDem's message as kingmaker though is "Let's kill the king!"
    Well, TBF that’s a not unattractive message given who the current kings are.
    But not to The Man Who Would Be King!
  • Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Because it's what people want to hear. The real question is why his opponents can't nail him for the lie?
  • Richardx9Richardx9 Posts: 10
    edited November 2019
    It’s still early days of course and the campaign has just got started. Few imagined in early May 2017 what result we got six weeks later.

    The campaign hasn’t started proper and the parties bar the main two get slightly more equal airtime and access to debates. Will the BXP run over 600 candidates or less than 60? How many seats will other parties not stand in to help the pro remain leading challenger.

    Boris is a more effective campaigner but more gaffe prone than May.

    And of course the Russians, the Russians....... and all their twitter bots turning people. If you believe some that’s the biggest factor of all!

    I just hope the Election Day is better for me than the last two. On Election Day on 7 May 2015 I was involved in a car accident and on election night in 2017 I had to spend the entire night in A&E as my dad had to be rushed into hospital. I just want a stress free 12/13th December 2019 - bar the results!
  • Some Jock MP on Jock MP action, for those who like that sort of thing. One wonders why publicity shy Mr Sweeney (my MP as it happens) has waited until the run up to a GE to reveal his grope nightmare.

    https://twitter.com/alasdair_clark/status/1190769860961280000?s=20
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    edited November 2019

    Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Because it's what people want to hear. The real question is why his opponents can't nail him for the lie?
    Fundamentally it’s because he is still in the honeymoon period, it’s too soon, none of his chickens are yet to return.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
    The LibDem's message as kingmaker though is "Let's kill the king!"
    Well, TBF that’s a not unattractive message given who the current kings are.
    But not to The Man Who Would Be King!
    Yes, but Johnson and Corbyn only have one vote each. They can be ignored.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 437



    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    I don't buy that the LDs have done anything peculiarly awful (though they've made a mega hash of explaining their Revoke policy), and they haven't actually launched their campaign yet: that 8-pager Jo hagiography was a test to evaluate which seats would repay extra resource, and real resource decisions have to await the more or less final list of seats they'll be standing down in to support other Remain Alliance members.

    But they MIGHT have a real problem, and the current polls MIGHT reflect it.

    For all the other parties, the Brexit crisis is at worst a total distraction (eg from Johnson's main priority of staying PM for 5 years) or at best an opportunity to promote their real objective. For the LDs, it's almost existential: free trade, arguably, is the glue that binds most of its members.

    No-one but the voters can decide what an election's about, but it IS possible that the natural dynamic of a UK election - at least in England - gives the two major parties an ability to re-assert the two-party system. And right now, Corbyn's desire to concentrate on his variant of Americaphobic neo-Marxism and Johnson's desire to concentrate on Corbyn's awfulness share a common interest in re-asserting the two-party system.

    Nothing, both think, stimulates votes for them as much as stirring up a phobia against the other. And both the public-spirited and the foreign billionaire-owned media find that a headline-generating narrative to publicise.

    Can the LDs overcome this? That depends on the ground war. And on the question of whether their superior strength in electoral guerilla warfare can work in a freezing, dark and damp campaign increasingly influenced (but still not dominated) by nationally-generated electronics.
  • On Lib Dems and Revoke. As a policy it's important as it differentiates the Lib Dems from Labour, it attempts to drive a wedge between Corbyn and his voters, it seeks to win/consolidate support from the six million who signed the Revoke petition in March.

    But it doesn't help with those moderate Tories who want a pragmatic compromise on Brexit and a government who respect established constitutional norms, and behave responsibly with the nation's finances. They need a message for those voters too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    Richardx9 said:

    It’s still early days of course and the campaign has just got started. Few imagined in early May 2017 what result we got six weeks later.

    The campaign hasn’t started proper and the parties bar the main two get slightly more equal airtime and access to debates. Will the BXP run over 600 candidates or less than 60? How many seats will other parties not stand in to help the pro remain leading challenger.

    Boris is a more effective campaigner but more gaffe prone than May.

    And of course the Russians, the Russians....... and all their twitter bots turning people. If you believe some that’s the biggest factor of all!

    I just hope the Election Day is better for me than the last two. On Election Day on 7 May 2015 I was involved in a car accident and on election night in 2017 I had to spend the entire night in A&E as my dad had to be rushed into hospital. I just want a stress free 12/13th December 2019 - bar the results!

    Best wishes for an incident-free Friday 13th.

    Oh.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I was going to post a message asking what people think has gone wrong for the LibDems. I'm one myself but I've had qualms about a few things. This isn't really an invitation for an attack on Jo Swinson, partly because I don't think it can be just her and partly because there's a bit of misogyny around in my opinion.

    No, something on policy or behaviour seems to have gone badly awry to take them from the 20% to 14% level.

    An election’s been called. That means:

    1) Corbyn and Johnson have ramped up the lie machine and got lots of publicity for huge spending commitments that they have neither the intention of keeping or for that matter the ability to keep. However, people will fall for it because they want to believe it;

    2) It has concentrated minds we are electing a government and however well the Liberal Democrats were doing immediately beforehand it’s obvious they will not be forming it themselves. They are in the position they have been in every election since 1929 of being possible kingmakers in a hung parliament, but not the kings;

    3) It has pushed the news agenda off Brexit, where their policy offering is most appealing to their target voters, and onto other areas where their policies are not known.

    From the Liberal Democrat point of view, this election came about six months too soon. A few months more of Corbyn’s windy prevarication, Johnson’s incompetence and Swinson demanding Revoke instead of a crashout on the airwaves every evening could well have seen them go into a sustained second place. But I don’t think they’ll make the breakthrough now. It would take a really big, disastrous scandal for Labour in the next three weeks to do that, and that’s not impossible but it’s not in their control.
    The LibDem's message as kingmaker though is "Let's kill the king!"
    Well, TBF that’s a not unattractive message given who the current kings are.
    True with Corbyn but Johnson has a better net favourable rating than Swinson and probably better than anyone who could plausibly replace him.

    Hardcore remainers seem to view Johnson through the opposite of rose tinted glasses as they assume everyone else is as angry with him as they are but that's just not true according to the polling figures.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Probably because he’s a pathological bloody liar.

    With apologies to Keith Waterhouse.
    Boris seems to be repeating Cameron’s mistake. He is so desperate to win he will make any promise, even if it costs him the ability to govern later...The opposition should exploit this. Get Boris on the record with ever more outlandish claims. He can’t help himself.
    First paragraph - all he cares about is winning. He’ll worry about the rest when he’s got a majority. From that point of view he’s taking the opposite approach to May, who tried to free herself to act on a radical programme and blew up her poll lead in the process.

    Second paragraph - that might work if the Opposition weren’t doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, Corbyn would be even more hamstrung than Johnson because he’s making even more outlandish promises and there is the non-trivial chance that people would refuse to buy gilts with him in charge leaving him unable to pay day-to-day running expenses of government.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,613
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Why is Boris promising that Brexit will go away when he can’t deliver that?

    Probably because he’s a pathological bloody liar.

    With apologies to Keith Waterhouse.
    Boris seems to be repeating Cameron’s mistake. He is so desperate to win he will make any promise, even if it costs him the ability to govern later.

    Reminds me of the AI in the ZX Spectrum of Monopoly, which was so desperate to complete a set it would trade you anything for the last card, including the two other cards it holds.

    The opposition should exploit this. Get Boris on the record with ever more outlandish claims. He can’t help himself.
    Yet I doubt even Boris will make a more outlandish claim than "Vote Liberal Democrat and will revoke Brexit!"........
  • Richardx9 said:

    And of course the Russians, the Russians....... and all their twitter bots turning people. If you believe some that’s the biggest factor of all!

    The Russians believe it, and presumably so do Labour and the Conservatives since they use many of the same techniques. It's like advertising. No-one admits to being influenced but somehow it's a multi-billion pounds industry.

    And the next question is why is Boris blocking the report into Russian meddling?
This discussion has been closed.