In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
Guessed.
Anyone read their tea leaves this morning?
It does look like the polling methodologies are changing more than the voters' minds.....
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Thanks for that.
If the chances of <169 are 'exceedingly small' one's liability is somewhat more limited than some other spread bets.
SI have introduced stop-loss limits which may be helpful to novices although they seem to be set too conservatively and I don't know if one can adjust them. OTOH SI is pretty generous to let people bet on credit which normal bookmakers wouldn't dream of allowing.
One is betting on the Labour vote being fairly tribal. That seems likely. Also the centre and left vote is probably split rather less badly than 1983. The SDP Alliance was then doing so well that the non-Tory vote divided almost 50/50%. Now it seems to be nearer 75/25% Lab/LD.
All those 14 point headlines just aren’t on message at all. I thought the media had moved on from the bad old days of this. 🙁 What actually happened was the lead from that polling company last poll increased by 1, didn’t it?
Are those winning here headlines disguising The Parliament v People election is a thing of the past. On a daily basis Labour are detoxifying themselves, all the benefits change to labour government and final say on brexit in the new year?
In the campaign do Tories need to get a grip?
I think they agree with me hence Gove’s performance on Today this morning and Boris emphasis on groundhoggery.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Indeed Gauke now backing EUref2 too today, so clearly he is a diehard Remainer after all.
He may even lose his deposit in SW Herts as an Independent
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
No, he could have got withdrawal agreement (i.e. Brexit) through parliament in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny over the FTA. That was the price of the tory rebels, and our authoritarian leader thought it a price that was too high, hence delayed Brexit and risked it not happening at all.
Death by a thousand cuts, it would have taken weeks and months with amendments a plenty and probably would have lost support at the end of it, leaving the Tories in a considerably worse position to fight Corbyn. I don't believe David Gauke had any intention of getting Boris's deal over the line, and the fact he's speaking out against a Tory majority and pushing this ridiculous notion that Boris will go for no deal shows he can be trusted even less than the PM.
You call it ridiculous, but your fellow Tory cheerleaders on here are promising that we will no deal if no FTA is agreed in world record time.
I really have no idea how disparate Tories have such confidence in their interpretation of the PMs promises is the correct one and everyone else is wrong, when he promises everyone what they want to hear and simply does what the polls tell him to at the time.
It is not just on no deal, the same applies to are we high spend (by implication high tax) or low spend/low tax; are we pro HS2 and Heathrow or against; are we pro US trade deal or against because of NHS and food standards;are we pro immigration with fast track visas or cutting immigration.
It is the most unclear Tory leadership ever, yet each group believes only they understand the real Johnson.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
Oh I don’t know, I think that is impressive for a polity political broadcast.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Discussing why different groups have different views on Brexit is essential to the country moving forward. Yes language can get out of hand on both sides, but the conversation whilst difficult must be had between the generations.
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
It’s more likely to annoy the hell out of the emergency workers on the ground, who have to divert resources from their primary task to deal with the VIP turning up with their entourage.
There are lots of things a PM or the Queen attend as representative of the country, and I consider the PM going to any kind of disaster aftermath falls into that category. It should not be obligatory, but still a responsibility to be taken seriously.
What is definitely the case is, if the PM attends, they have to be genuine and sincere. Theresa May going to Grenfell Tower and only talking to police/fireworkers was a disgrace to all who actually suffered because of the fire.
I recall Dave's leadership suffering an early blow during the floods of 2007. Gordon was flying over the flooded Cotswolds in a chopper, whilst Dave ponced around Africa bleating about some native genocide or other. How the right-wing press lapped that up - declaring Gordon the man with his finger on a traumatized nation's pulse whilst Dave hobnobbed with the do-gooders.
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Indeed Gauke now backing EUref2 too today, so clearly he is a diehard Remainer after all.
He may even lose his deposit in SW Herts as an Independent
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
No, he could have got withdrawal agreement (i.e. Brexit) through parliament in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny over the FTA. That was the price of the tory rebels, and our authoritarian leader thought it a price that was too high, hence delayed Brexit and risked it not happening at all.
Death by a thousand cuts, it would have taken weeks and months with amendments a plenty and probably would have lost support at the end of it, leaving the Tories in a considerably worse position to fight Corbyn. I don't believe David Gauke had any intention of getting Boris's deal over the line, and the fact he's speaking out against a Tory majority and pushing this ridiculous notion that Boris will go for no deal shows he can be trusted even less than the PM.
You call it ridiculous, but your fellow Tory cheerleaders on here are promising that we will no deal if no FTA is agreed in world record time.
I really have no idea how disparate Tories have such confidence in their interpretation of the PMs promises is the correct one and everyone else is wrong, when he promises everyone what they want to hear and simply does what the polls tell him to at the time.
It is not just on no deal, the same applies to are we high spend (by implication high tax) or low spend/low tax; are we pro HS2 and Heathrow or against; are we pro US trade deal or against because of NHS and food standards;are we pro immigration with fast track visas or cutting immigration.
It is the most unclear Tory leadership ever, yet each group believes only they understand the real Johnson.
Which is how Johnson likes it. Were he to reveal his actual view on any topic his majority will disappear in minutes.
The Brexit party not standing in roughly half the seats and the Lib/Green/PC pact does make enterpreting the polls much harder. A large chunk of voters are not at this stage bothered about finding out, which parties are standing in their constituency. Either the polling companies are reaching these voters and recording a proportion of "non-feasible" voting intentions, or the poling companies are only reaching repondents who know the latest in the political shenanagins in their constituency, and so have a biassed sample.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Very true, but bear in mind that labour went down to just 1 seat in 2015 and only 6 in 2017. Even if they do drop to just Edinburgh South, they still need to loose a further 55 across Eng/Wales to reach just 200.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Marmite haters will be disproportionately lefty vegans anyway.... People who can't cope with a good strong tang on their palate.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Not sure where Labour are going to continue to close the gap from. Not from the Tories for sure. The Lib Dem position seems to have firmed up after shedding a percent or two and Brexit Party are going all out to woo Labour voters.
If the Yougov towns poll is anywhere near correct on the night, then Labour face a complete shellacking.
The Brexit party not standing in roughly half the seats and the Lib/Green/PC pact does make enterpreting the polls much harder. A large chunk of voters are not at this stage bothered about finding out, which parties are standing in their constituency. Either the polling companies are reaching these voters and recording a proportion of "non-feasible" voting intentions, or the poling companies are only reaching repondents who know the latest in the political shenanagins in their constituency, and so have a biassed sample.
YouGov have made the leap with BXP. That should be the default polling to follow until others reveal how they are coping with this situation.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Marmite haters will be disproportionately lefty vegans anyway.... People who can't cope with a good strong tang on their palate.
Quite the reverse. Marmite is very popular amongst vegans, not least for the B12 content.
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
No, he could have got withdrawal agreement (i.e. Brexit) through parliament in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny over the FTA. That was the price of the tory rebels, and our authoritarian leader thought it a price that was too high, hence delayed Brexit and risked it not happening at all.
Death by a thousand cuts, it would have taken weeks and months with amendments a plenty and probably would have lost support at the end of it, leaving the Tories in a considerably worse position to fight Corbyn. I don't believe David Gauke had any intention of getting Boris's deal over the line, and the fact he's speaking out against a Tory majority and pushing this ridiculous notion that Boris will go for no deal shows he can be trusted even less than the PM.
You call it ridiculous, but your fellow Tory cheerleaders on here are promising that we will no deal if no FTA is agreed in world record time.
I really have no idea how disparate Tories have such confidence in their interpretation of the PMs promises is the correct one and everyone else is wrong, when he promises everyone what they want to hear and simply does what the polls tell him to at the time.
It is not just on no deal, the same applies to are we high spend (by implication high tax) or low spend/low tax; are we pro HS2 and Heathrow or against; are we pro US trade deal or against because of NHS and food standards;are we pro immigration with fast track visas or cutting immigration.
It is the most unclear Tory leadership ever, yet each group believes only they understand the real Johnson.
Which is how Johnson likes it. Were he to reveal his actual view on any topic his majority will disappear in minutes.
I completely see why Johnson likes it, I am just baffled at the confidence of Tory cheerleaders who each call the opposite views of their fellow Tory cheerleaders ridiculous because only they understand the PM.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
Wtf indeed.
When both Labour and Tory shares go down because of squeezing undecideds......that honestly looks off.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Marmite haters will be disproportionately lefty vegans anyway.... People who can't cope with a good strong tang on their palate.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
Are you by any chance related to Matthew J Partridge, the strong Labour party supporter who used to post here?
The Brexit party not standing in roughly half the seats and the Lib/Green/PC pact does make enterpreting the polls much harder. A large chunk of voters are not at this stage bothered about finding out, which parties are standing in their constituency. Either the polling companies are reaching these voters and recording a proportion of "non-feasible" voting intentions, or the poling companies are only reaching repondents who know the latest in the political shenanagins in their constituency, and so have a biassed sample.
Will there still be paper vote candidates in some of those places, such as angry BP standing as Real BP, orUKIP how many are they fielding and where, who will get a transfer of votes from missing BP to them and not to Tories? Has anyone mentioned this could be a gift horse stuffed with votes for UKIP getting much better result than expected?
All those 14 point headlines just aren’t on message at all. I thought the media had moved on from the bad old days of this. 🙁 What actually happened was the lead from that polling company last poll increased by 1, didn’t it?
Are those winning here headlines disguising The Parliament v People election is a thing of the past. On a daily basis Labour are detoxifying themselves, all the benefits change to labour government and final say on brexit in the new year?
In the campaign do Tories need to get a grip?
I think they agree with me hence Gove’s performance on Today this morning and Boris emphasis on groundhoggery.
And Labour’s illogical, impossible to explain, so absurd it falls apart in first week brexit policy is proving harder to stamp out? OGH often warns us labour voters prioritise other things more important to them than brexit, could it be because of that? It could be harder to get them to laugh and fear at Labour’s brexit policy when in their mind this election is about something else, final say on brexit comes later, So the groundhoggery stuff they are deaf to? Could that be going on?
But these are leave voters in Labour’s heartlands who are supposed to switch because Labour’s brexit position is so bad?
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Marmite haters will be disproportionately lefty vegans anyway.... People who can't cope with a good strong tang on their palate.
What an odd image of vegans. The vegan cooking of Asia would rather give the lie to that idea of an inability of vegans to cope with strong flavours.
Ashworth rabbiting on about spending more than the Tory increased spending on the NHS, whilst at the same time talking about Tory cuts to the NHS. Baffling Labour logic.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Very true, but bear in mind that labour went down to just 1 seat in 2015 and only 6 in 2017. Even if they do drop to just Edinburgh South, they still need to loose a further 55 across Eng/Wales to reach just 200.
Those would be seats that they lost in 1983. The "nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass" from the 1983 total are all Scottish seats. They're already lost.
If you want to be really apocalyptic then you can point to seats like Workington, Bolsover or Bassetlaw that might be lost by Labour this time that have been Labour since almost the beginning of time. If Labour finish the campaign poorly there's a plausible route to under 150 seats.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I agree. But by talking about it and sharing it they are doing the Tories a favour. It's certainly not offensive enough (marmite haters aside) for a wavering voter to turn anti Boris so I imagine Tory HQ will be hoping for as much exposure as possible.
Marmite is however a strong 'British' brand, and a side effect of beer brewing, so aside from his 'actual' preference, coming out in support is better than not.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Very true, but bear in mind that labour went down to just 1 seat in 2015 and only 6 in 2017. Even if they do drop to just Edinburgh South, they still need to loose a further 55 across Eng/Wales to reach just 200.
Those would be seats that they lost in 1983. The "nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass" from the 1983 total are all Scottish seats. They're already lost.
If you want to be really apocalyptic then you can point to seats like Workington, Bolsover or Bassetlaw that might be lost by Labour this time that have been Labour since almost the beginning of time. If Labour finish the campaign poorly there's a plausible route to under 150 seats.
I think if morale & discipline really break down, with Corbynite and non-Corbynite fighting over the blame, then that apocalyptic vision could happen. It is possible. More likely is ~30 or so losses, IMO.
Ashworth rabbiting on about spending more than the Tory increased spending on the NHS, whilst at the same time talking about Tory cuts to the NHS. Baffling Labour logic.
It will be difficult for labour to rubbish the tories' spaffing plans as an extension of austerity and as an example of economic imprudence.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Thanks for that.
If the chances of <169 are 'exceedingly small' one's liability is somewhat more limited than some other spread bets.
SI have introduced stop-loss limits which may be helpful to novices although they seem to be set too conservatively and I don't know if one can adjust them. OTOH SI is pretty generous to let people bet on credit which normal bookmakers wouldn't dream of allowing.
One is betting on the Labour vote being fairly tribal. That seems likely. Also the centre and left vote is probably split rather less badly than 1983. The SDP Alliance was then doing so well that the non-Tory vote divided almost 50/50%. Now it seems to be nearer 75/25% Lab/LD. </p>
Please stop calling me "tribal". After the horror show of 1983, where the Alliance got a reward of 23 seats for its 25% voteshare, tactical voting started to get it's act together, with its peak impact in 1997.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
Wtf indeed.
When both Labour and Tory shares go down because of squeezing undecideds......that honestly looks off.
No no. If they have computed that and got big lead over Labour this is good news, is it not?
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
Are you by any chance related to Matthew J Partridge, the strong Labour party supporter who used to post here?
You have almost the same profile !
Haha, no i have been asked that once before, no I am not
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Discussing why different groups have different views on Brexit is essential to the country moving forward. Yes language can get out of hand on both sides, but the conversation whilst difficult must be had between the generations.
A conversation is not what many are after. They want to demonize the old or insult the young. You're right that generations understanding if disagreeing with the majority view of the other is important, but I dont think we get much understanding being sought, just 'you stole our future/you're youth idiots', if not in those exact words.
According to Lord Ashcroft, given a forced choice 89% of Conservative Remain voters from 2017 favour a Conservative government, compared to 11% favouring a Labour government. There's not going to be much slippage among that group of voters.
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
Except for the fact the warnings came too late, the cobra meeting and government response with army came too late, and current government caused the floods and not the weather because they didn’t dredge the rivers? Actually it’s worse than that, the big lesson to be learnt from five years ago was rivers not cleaned enough, so it’s government repeating same old mistakes not learning lessons.
Still a clear win in your mind based on a comedian with a mop? Mopping like he’s never used a mop in his life.
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
A perfect illustration of the choice between two crap alternatives.
Ashworth rabbiting on about spending more than the Tory increased spending on the NHS, whilst at the same time talking about Tory cuts to the NHS. Baffling Labour logic.
It's tough when the other side steal your most popular policies. Win the argument, lose the election? No thanks.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Very true, but bear in mind that labour went down to just 1 seat in 2015 and only 6 in 2017. Even if they do drop to just Edinburgh South, they still need to loose a further 55 across Eng/Wales to reach just 200.
Those would be seats that they lost in 1983. The "nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass" from the 1983 total are all Scottish seats. They're already lost.
If you want to be really apocalyptic then you can point to seats like Workington, Bolsover or Bassetlaw that might be lost by Labour this time that have been Labour since almost the beginning of time. If Labour finish the campaign poorly there's a plausible route to under 150 seats.
I think if morale & discipline really break down, with Corbynite and non-Corbynite fighting over the blame, then that apocalyptic vision could happen. It is possible. More likely is ~30 or so losses, IMO.
My view on the 2017GE is that there was a large chunk of voters who (a) decided they really didn't trust Theresa May with a massive majority and (b) correctly identified voting Labour as the way to prevent that. This time around... (a) Johnson does have high negatives, but I think his air of bumbling incompetence (whether genuine or affected) does have the effect of reducing the perceived urgency to stop him. (b) Labour have made a good start this campaign in preventing the Liberal Democrats from eclipsing them as the vehicle for a stop-Johnson movement, but they are still a lot stronger than two years ago. I think ~30 losses would be a remarkable escape by Labour.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I'd be wary of drawing conclusions either way (I've also seen excited Momentum claims about the huge audience for their #Torystory tweets). At the last election, the Tories got a huge audience for social media about the evils of Corbyn which got PB Tories posting regular updates - another N million have watched! - and it turned out to have no apparent effect. I don't mean there aren't effects - just that we're a bit at a loss to assess them without much more detailed data.
According to Lord Ashcroft, given a forced choice 89% of Conservative Remain voters from 2017 favour a Conservative government, compared to 11% favouring a Labour government. There's not going to be much slippage among that group of voters.
2.7m views for the Conservative PPB already and that is just on twitter. Very impressive.
Many of those will be non Tory voters hate watching. Considering twitter isn't the real world and skews young / left, I would suggest that is a larger portion of the audience. But would be interested in seeing metrics for stuff like that...
I'd be wary of drawing conclusions either way (I've also seen excited Momentum claims about the huge audience for their #Torystory tweets). At the last election, the Tories got a huge audience for social media about the evils of Corbyn which got PB Tories posting regular updates - another N million have watched! - and it turned out to have no apparent effect. I don't mean there aren't effects - just that we're a bit at a loss to assess them without much more detailed data.
I'm never sure if videos are ever actually watched online. They often start just because you hit a particular page or scroll down and your cursor goes over a particular tweet...
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
A perfect illustration of the choice between two crap alternatives.
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
To be honest that is why the PB last night was actually very good - in hindsight.
Everyone knows what Johnson is like - he's been a media "personality", as well as senior politician for many years. His mannerisms, voice, gait, appearance and way of communicating are well known both to his detractors and his supporters. For better or worse.
The PB last night was clever in that it gave the impression of energy, movement, things happening (even though it was Johnson making a cup of tea - but that was just a mechanism to sub-consciously convey the message).
Ordinarily we do just get a talking head or a speech to camera. Corbyn likes that. Static and as you say with a "concerned face", not much humour, dour - almost depressing (except to his ardent supporters of course).
The more I think on it the cleverer last nights PB seems. Those that hate him won't have their opinions changed - they may be even reinforced. But I don't think that's the audience it was designed for.
According to Lord Ashcroft, given a forced choice 89% of Conservative Remain voters from 2017 favour a Conservative government, compared to 11% favouring a Labour government. There's not going to be much slippage among that group of voters.
The question is do they turn out to vote.
Yes, if PM Corbyn is the consequence of them not doing.
I've met these people on the doorsteps. Tory Remainers are still for the most part Tories.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Discussing why different groups have different views on Brexit is essential to the country moving forward. Yes language can get out of hand on both sides, but the conversation whilst difficult must be had between the generations.
A conversation is not what many are after. They want to demonize the old or insult the young. You're right that generations understanding if disagreeing with the majority view of the other is important, but I dont think we get much understanding being sought, just 'you stole our future/you're youth idiots', if not in those exact words.
Those are the starting viewpoints for many within each group, they should be expressed honestly. To get away from those viewpoints you need a dialogue not pretending there isnt a huge discrepancy that is causing division between the generations.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
How many exiting countries have negotiated a deal though?
The EU will not want any more trade disruption. I am fairly bullish that a deal can be fast-tracked.
A deal can absolutely be done. The issue is what kind of deal.
Indeed. It seems logical that the only kinds of deals that can be done quickly are: 1. A maximalist deal that preserves most of the present arrangements: Customs Union, regulatory alignment etc. Not much new has to be agreed 2. A minimalist agreement/No deal. Not much is agreed at all.
Anything in between is surely going to take as long as trade deals with the EU take, as everything is up for negotiation. And every EU country and some regions will have to agree.
Johnson's Conservative party will only accept no. 2 out of the above, and an extension to negotiations has been ruled out, so the only way to avoid crashing out of the transition period at the end of next year is to vote for whichever local candidate can beat the Conservative.
According to Lord Ashcroft, given a forced choice 89% of Conservative Remain voters from 2017 favour a Conservative government, compared to 11% favouring a Labour government. There's not going to be much slippage among that group of voters.
The question is do they turn out to vote.
Yes, if PM Corbyn is the consequence of them not doing.
I've met these people on the doorsteps. Tory Remainers are still for the most part Tories.
Of course we are. The question is whether the Conservative Party still is.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
It's a huge shift in VI arising from squeeze questions and imputation alone, such that you have to wonder if they have overdone it. In the present climate of shifting political loyalties, if what they have done is imputation based on a reversion to past loyalties then that seems particularly fraught with danger.
We appear to be seeing herding of polls. Until now, Kantar had consistently the highest VI for the Conservatives, exceeding even Opinium polls conducted at similar times, although this is their first for a while. They had the Conservatives on 42% back in August. They've clearly been worried at being so far to one extreme and have looked to bring in changes to get back into the pack in time for the GE result. They could in all honesty have made changes at any time, so the fact they are doing it just in time for the point at when they will be judged is telling.
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
Remarkable that Johnson took so long to visit. The Cons strategy for winning the GE is based on winning Lab seats in these places up North. Strange tactics indeed, therefore, to make it crystal clear that he does not give a shit about them. The honesty, whilst laudable, is out of character and surprising. Could be costly too. Don Valley now safe for Flint?
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
Remarkable that Johnson took so long to visit. The Cons strategy for winning the GE is based on winning Lab seats in these places up North. Strange tactics indeed, therefore, to make it crystal clear that he does not give a shit about them. The honesty, whilst laudable, is out of character and surprising. Could be costly too. Don Valley now safe for Flint?
Corbyn is Corbyn and he is the issue for so many that nowhere is safe for labour
@rcs1000 , I was going thru old emails th other day when I saw you'd sent me an email some ime ago about the UK insurance market.ni didn't reply because I had no information that you didn't already know. I hope you didn't think me rude.
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
Remarkable that Johnson took so long to visit. The Cons strategy for winning the GE is based on winning Lab seats in these places up North. Strange tactics indeed, therefore, to make it crystal clear that he does not give a shit about them. The honesty, whilst laudable, is out of character and surprising. Could be costly too. Don Valley now safe for Flint?
The flip side being, as has been mentioned, is a visiting PM or other VIP diverts resources and actually interferes with the work the Emergency Services are trying to do. Gaggles of journalists, security etc just get in the way, are not helpful and are solely there to record and protect a politician who is only really concerned about a good photo opportunity to show how "with the people" they are.
Politicians serve no purpose with these visits. Mop, no mop or even a "concerned" face.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Interesting observations, but I must take issue with the idea that marmite is feelgood food!
On the other hand, I can quite happily associate Johnson with marmite ;-)
:-)
I'd be fascinated to know their thought process in choosing to associate Boris with Marmite. Maybe:
- That Boris polarises opinion is already priced in - People who like Marmite tend to *really* like it - It's a very British brand, as Slackbladder observes - It shows him giving a straight answer to a controversial (if inconsequential) question - It's something that might get some people talking and sharing, like the tea-making technique.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Interesting observations, but I must take issue with the idea that marmite is feelgood food!
On the other hand, I can quite happily associate Johnson with marmite ;-)
:-)
I'd be fascinated to know their thought process in choosing to associate Boris with Marmite. Maybe:
- That Boris polarises opinion is already priced in - People who like Marmite tend to *really* like it - It's a very British brand, as Slackbladder observes - It shows him giving a straight answer to a controversial (if inconsequential) question - It's something that might get some people talking and sharing, like the tea-making technique.
It's also a positive 'doing' attitude...liking something as opposed to disliking something, which is negative.
If Boris is trying to portray a 'can-do' attitude, then you want to be seen as open and welcoming, not negative.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
It's a huge shift in VI arising from squeeze questions and imputation alone, such that you have to wonder if they have overdone it. In the present climate of shifting political loyalties, if what they have done is imputation based on a reversion to past loyalties then that seems particularly fraught with danger.
We appear to be seeing herding of polls. Until now, Kantar had consistently the highest VI for the Conservatives, exceeding even Opinium polls conducted at similar times, although this is their first for a while. They had the Conservatives on 42% back in August. They've clearly been worried at being so far to one extreme and have looked to bring in changes to get back into the pack in time for the GE result. They could in all honesty have made changes at any time, so the fact they are doing it just in time for the point at when they will be judged is telling.
Without this manufactured change, they hadn't noted any difference at all from their last poll. So far, they have not found the campaign changing opinions.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
It's a huge shift in VI arising from squeeze questions and imputation alone, such that you have to wonder if they have overdone it. In the present climate of shifting political loyalties, if what they have done is imputation based on a reversion to past loyalties then that seems particularly fraught with danger.
We appear to be seeing herding of polls. Until now, Kantar had consistently the highest VI for the Conservatives, exceeding even Opinium polls conducted at similar times, although this is their first for a while. They had the Conservatives on 42% back in August. They've clearly been worried at being so far to one extreme and have looked to bring in changes to get back into the pack in time for the GE result. They could in all honesty have made changes at any time, so the fact they are doing it just in time for the point at when they will be judged is telling.
It hasn't been that long. The last Kantar poll was 15th October with the Tories on 39% and Labour 25% under the old methodology.
Very true, but bear in mind that labour went down to just 1 seat in 2015 and only 6 in 2017. Even if they do drop to just Edinburgh South, they still need to loose a further 55 across Eng/Wales to reach just 200.
Buying Labour seats at current spreads is a great trade if you go along with the view, sometimes floated on here, that whereas supporters of all the other parties are intelligent, freethinking types who carefully weigh up the merits of their leader and policies before casting their vote, those who back Labour tend to march like mindless automatons down to the polling station on election day and put their cross next to the Labour candidate just purely out of habit, probably not even knowing who the leader is or able to name a single policy in the manifesto.
I recall Dave's leadership suffering an early blow during the floods of 2007. Gordon was flying over the flooded Cotswolds in a chopper, whilst Dave ponced around Africa bleating about some native genocide or other. How the right-wing press lapped that up - declaring Gordon the man with his finger on a traumatized nation's pulse whilst Dave hobnobbed with the do-gooders.
My recollection of the Cotswold floods is completely different. But then I lived in the middle of them.
Among the major pressure groups Cameron had to deal with in his constituency were the overseas aid industry, intellectual property advocates and early-stage Pharma startups. Possibly trivial elsewhere, but loud mouthed and manipulative in the leafy Oxford suburbs most of his constituents lived or worked in. Rwanda at the time chaired, or rapporteured or whatevered, the UN committee looking at global IP protection for pharaceuticals, the main local state school was funding a place-swap scheme with its Kigali oppo, and there were a clutch of Rwandan overseas aid programmes many about-to-be voters were gap-yearing in. In the 2005 hustings, overseas aid had been the most asked-about issue: so much so that in the 2016 hustings between his aspirant successors, the ERG candidate instantly became a "passionate" (his term) advocate of more cash for developing countries.
So going to Rwanda (where he never once mentioned genocide, and doesn't do bleating anyway) was a no-brainer. Brown was widely criticised in the constituency for wasting fuel and time being seen to look concerned at fast-receding floods (the great thing about floods at altitude is they run downhill quickly) - as was Cameron when he started getting in people's way after he got back. After all: the local (Tory) council was doing a perfectly decent job sorting things out (as even the LD-voting villages agreed), and in West Oxfordshire we don't hold with with masquerading as victims .
Of course, the Murdoch press (which by 2007 had decided Cameron was a wet) tried inventing stories about "deserting his people", which the Dave Spart tendency in Oxford and London latched onto. Always out of touch, the Dave Sparts.
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
Remarkable that Johnson took so long to visit. The Cons strategy for winning the GE is based on winning Lab seats in these places up North. Strange tactics indeed, therefore, to make it crystal clear that he does not give a shit about them. The honesty, whilst laudable, is out of character and surprising. Could be costly too. Don Valley now safe for Flint?
He was visiting Doncaster which is a safe Labour seat held by Ed Miliband, we also need to make clearer to people the risks of buying near a floodplain
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
Boris grabbed a mop at least. All Jeremy Corbyn seemed to do was wander around the place looking 'concerned'. Which would you rather have if your house was flooded? The PM coming along and diving into the actual work, lifting spirits with his risque jokes and his relentless bonhomie, or a Marxist skulking haplessly in the kitchen being politically correct and wittering about a "national emergency". Quite. Clear win for the Blues.
A perfect illustration of the choice between two crap alternatives.
given the mess he made with a mop somewhere else, not surprised they've not sent for him quicker....
Remarkable that Johnson took so long to visit. The Cons strategy for winning the GE is based on winning Lab seats in these places up North. Strange tactics indeed, therefore, to make it crystal clear that he does not give a shit about them. The honesty, whilst laudable, is out of character and surprising. Could be costly too. Don Valley now safe for Flint?
The flip side being, as has been mentioned, is a visiting PM or other VIP diverts resources and actually interferes with the work the Emergency Services are trying to do. Gaggles of journalists, security etc just get in the way, are not helpful and are solely there to record and protect a politician who is only really concerned about a good photo opportunity to show how "with the people" they are.
Politicians serve no purpose with these visits. Mop, no mop or even a "concerned" face.
I think there's an important element of morale - we haven't forgotten you, we make these commitments to you, I, as the leader of the country am with you at your time of need as a symbol that the country (and its tax revenue, or law-making ability) also stands with you.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
All entirely consistent.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
All entirely consistent.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
I don't think your second paragraph is consistent with the third. We are prepared for war - or at least we hope we do. We buy equipment, hold reviews, upgrade kit, hold exercises. We are not prepared for no deal - the operations are mounted half heartedly and then cancelled. The Latin tag is not "Si vis pacem, pretendum para bellum with mop".
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
The Cotswolds are a funny one. While traditionally they don't count the Tory votes, they weigh them, the Liberal Democrats have been making inroads in the local council due to the former council's corruption and incompetence. There's also significant metropolitanisation as Londoners move further out along the railway lines. I think the Liberal Democrats will probably still come second this time but I would say they're 5-1 not 8-1. So that does look value.
At the same time, Cheltenham isn't quite the gimme everyone is assuming. Meanwhile, I think David Drew in Stroud is almost certainly a lost cause for Labour, but as it's Labour's only local marginal or indeed realistic target expect them to throw the kitchen sink at it.
The unions are going to have paid for an awful lot of kitchens without a functioning sink in them on December 13th.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Leavers in Sep 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks! Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal! Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
All entirely consistent.
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.
But we didn't get a good deal. We got a deal that gives all the leverage to the EU and concedes to all of their red lines.
Comments
If the chances of <169 are 'exceedingly small' one's liability is somewhat more limited than some other spread bets.
SI have introduced stop-loss limits which may be helpful to novices although they seem to be set too conservatively and I don't know if one can adjust them. OTOH SI is pretty generous to let people bet on credit which normal bookmakers wouldn't dream of allowing.
One is betting on the Labour vote being fairly tribal. That seems likely. Also the centre and left vote is probably split rather less badly than 1983. The SDP Alliance was then doing so well that the non-Tory vote divided almost 50/50%. Now it seems to be nearer 75/25% Lab/LD.
Are those winning here headlines disguising The Parliament v People election is a thing of the past. On a daily basis Labour are detoxifying themselves, all the benefits change to labour government and final say on brexit in the new year?
In the campaign do Tories need to get a grip?
I think they agree with me hence Gove’s performance on Today this morning and Boris emphasis on groundhoggery.
I really have no idea how disparate Tories have such confidence in their interpretation of the PMs promises is the correct one and everyone else is wrong, when he promises everyone what they want to hear and simply does what the polls tell him to at the time.
It is not just on no deal, the same applies to are we high spend (by implication high tax) or low spend/low tax; are we pro HS2 and Heathrow or against; are we pro US trade deal or against because of NHS and food standards;are we pro immigration with fast track visas or cutting immigration.
It is the most unclear Tory leadership ever, yet each group believes only they understand the real Johnson.
The Brexit party not standing in roughly half the seats and the Lib/Green/PC pact does make enterpreting the polls much harder. A large chunk of voters are not at this stage bothered about finding out, which parties are standing in their constituency. Either the polling companies are reaching these voters and recording a proportion of "non-feasible" voting intentions, or the poling companies are only reaching repondents who know the latest in the political shenanagins in their constituency, and so have a biassed sample.
Here are the current floods in Venice (Finnish source, but look at the pictures)
https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006306063.html
If the Yougov towns poll is anywhere near correct on the night, then Labour face a complete shellacking.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ia_111219/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
When both Labour and Tory shares go down because of squeezing undecideds......that honestly looks off.
My mate's Liverpudlian family are talking of voting tory. Labour-voting family for 100 years.
I
You have almost the same profile !
So much in politics has unforeseen consequences.
But these are leave voters in Labour’s heartlands who are supposed to switch because Labour’s brexit position is so bad?
If you want to be really apocalyptic then you can point to seats like Workington, Bolsover or Bassetlaw that might be lost by Labour this time that have been Labour since almost the beginning of time. If Labour finish the campaign poorly there's a plausible route to under 150 seats.
I'm sure they will try.
After the horror show of 1983, where the Alliance got a reward of 23 seats for its 25% voteshare, tactical voting started to get it's act together, with its peak impact in 1997.
Still a clear win in your mind based on a comedian with a mop? Mopping like he’s never used a mop in his life.
(a) Johnson does have high negatives, but I think his air of bumbling incompetence (whether genuine or affected) does have the effect of reducing the perceived urgency to stop him.
(b) Labour have made a good start this campaign in preventing the Liberal Democrats from eclipsing them as the vehicle for a stop-Johnson movement, but they are still a lot stronger than two years ago.
I think ~30 losses would be a remarkable escape by Labour.
How many was it that watch the "Corbyn supports terrorism" ad in 2017?
Everyone knows what Johnson is like - he's been a media "personality", as well as senior politician for many years. His mannerisms, voice, gait, appearance and way of communicating are well known both to his detractors and his supporters. For better or worse.
The PB last night was clever in that it gave the impression of energy, movement, things happening (even though it was Johnson making a cup of tea - but that was just a mechanism to sub-consciously convey the message).
Ordinarily we do just get a talking head or a speech to camera. Corbyn likes that. Static and as you say with a "concerned face", not much humour, dour - almost depressing (except to his ardent supporters of course).
The more I think on it the cleverer last nights PB seems. Those that hate him won't have their opinions changed - they may be even reinforced. But I don't think that's the audience it was designed for.
Corbyn was heckled today in Scotland being accused of a terrorist sympathiser
This is labour's problem. Corbyn is disliked even more than Brexit
Imagine if labour had a sensible leader, they would be out of sight and Brexit would be over
I've met these people on the doorsteps. Tory Remainers are still for the most part Tories.
1. A maximalist deal that preserves most of the present arrangements: Customs Union, regulatory alignment etc. Not much new has to be agreed
2. A minimalist agreement/No deal. Not much is agreed at all.
Anything in between is surely going to take as long as trade deals with the EU take, as everything is up for negotiation. And every EU country and some regions will have to agree.
Johnson's Conservative party will only accept no. 2 out of the above, and an extension to negotiations has been ruled out, so the only way to avoid crashing out of the transition period at the end of next year is to vote for whichever local candidate can beat the Conservative.
They never should've put him on the short list. And Watson was his useful idiot, keeping wavering Labour MPs inside the big red tent.
It's a huge shift in VI arising from squeeze questions and imputation alone, such that you have to wonder if they have overdone it. In the present climate of shifting political loyalties, if what they have done is imputation based on a reversion to past loyalties then that seems particularly fraught with danger.
We appear to be seeing herding of polls. Until now, Kantar had consistently the highest VI for the Conservatives, exceeding even Opinium polls conducted at similar times, although this is their first for a while. They had the Conservatives on 42% back in August. They've clearly been worried at being so far to one extreme and have looked to bring in changes to get back into the pack in time for the GE result. They could in all honesty have made changes at any time, so the fact they are doing it just in time for the point at when they will be judged is telling.
Although "And the Scouser shall voteth for the Tory; the Labour Walls of Bootle shall falleth" are signs of the End Times.....
Politicians serve no purpose with these visits. Mop, no mop or even a "concerned" face.
I'd be fascinated to know their thought process in choosing to associate Boris with Marmite. Maybe:
- That Boris polarises opinion is already priced in
- People who like Marmite tend to *really* like it
- It's a very British brand, as Slackbladder observes
- It shows him giving a straight answer to a controversial (if inconsequential) question
- It's something that might get some people talking and sharing, like the tea-making technique.
If Boris is trying to portray a 'can-do' attitude, then you want to be seen as open and welcoming, not negative.
Among the major pressure groups Cameron had to deal with in his constituency were the overseas aid industry, intellectual property advocates and early-stage Pharma startups. Possibly trivial elsewhere, but loud mouthed and manipulative in the leafy Oxford suburbs most of his constituents lived or worked in. Rwanda at the time chaired, or rapporteured or whatevered, the UN committee looking at global IP protection for pharaceuticals, the main local state school was funding a place-swap scheme with its Kigali oppo, and there were a clutch of Rwandan overseas aid programmes many about-to-be voters were gap-yearing in. In the 2005 hustings, overseas aid had been the most asked-about issue: so much so that in the 2016 hustings between his aspirant successors, the ERG candidate instantly became a "passionate" (his term) advocate of more cash for developing countries.
So going to Rwanda (where he never once mentioned genocide, and doesn't do bleating anyway) was a no-brainer. Brown was widely criticised in the constituency for wasting fuel and time being seen to look concerned at fast-receding floods (the great thing about floods at altitude is they run downhill quickly) - as was Cameron when he started getting in people's way after he got back. After all: the local (Tory) council was doing a perfectly decent job sorting things out (as even the LD-voting villages agreed), and in West Oxfordshire we don't hold with with masquerading as victims .
Of course, the Murdoch press (which by 2007 had decided Cameron was a wet) tried inventing stories about "deserting his people", which the Dave Spart tendency in Oxford and London latched onto. Always out of touch, the Dave Sparts.
(sorry!)
Leavers in Oct 2019: Foolish Remainers! Obviously Boris did not intend no deal!
Leavers in Nov 2019: Foolish Remainers! Boris will threaten no deal and get stacks!
You have to seriously be prepared to threaten to walk away with no deal in order to get a good deal, that doesn't mean you intend no deal.
Just the same as you spend on your military in order to have peace. The Romans had an expression: Si vis pacem, para bellum that logic was known thousands of years ago is still relevant today.
PS if you wanted no deal you wouldn't threaten it, you'd just prepare for it and walk away without engaging in negotiations.