I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
Totally undeliverable. Cable certainly isn't the solution for outlying areas even now, let alone in years time with developed 5G & probably 6G up and running. No ISP solution at all. And who wants the state actually running the internet pipes? You can't trust them.
Who am I supposed to trust to run them? The Chinese govt tech companies or the US govt tech companies?
Barnesian, I'm trying to follow your spreadsheet and well done for making it public! In Bassetlaw, Labour seem to be the winner in 2017, 2019 and in the previous scenario on the left but Cons win on the right? Which column is your forecast please? Many thanks.
I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
What's the cost?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, Apparently
Keeping all of those people employed is literally tens of billions per year. Just to keep the lights on, for a product the government will charge no money for an fund through taxation. We're literally talking about a whole new department with a budget vastly bigger than the Home Office.
Spending to invest - It will pay for itself in a productivity miracle. The Tories have presided over stagnant productivity for the last 10 years! Real wages are at the level of 2007!
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Edit: and of course the importance of the internet is many times that of the British Film industry. I wouldn’t be supposed if this policy cost more over ten year than Brexit.
Labour's free broadband is dominating the national conservation. This is dangerous for Boris - gives the impression that Labour is fizzing with ideas while the Tories are still wringing their hands over a messy Brexit. Smart of Jezza though. He obviously released that his opaque Brexit position was a hindrance, so gets everyone talking about something else. A variation of the dead-cat strategy I think.
No, a dead cat would be a prominent Labour politician saying something like Boris lied to his wife, so why wouldn't he lie to the country about no deal brexit. Dead cats are invariably personal in nature, look at the one about Ed stabbing his brother in the back.
I wouldn't underestimate the effect of this policy.
It's got people talking about something that isn't Brexit. Huge bonus for Corbyn.
It's dominated an entire cycle of news. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. It crowds out whatever the Tories are trying to say.
Most people hate telecoms companies. The average joe can't understand why they have to pay £25 for "landline rental" when they only use their mobile. Most of us have been stung with high connection or disconnection charges. I remember being genuinely shocked at having to pay nigh on a hundred quid to disconnect my service when I moved house. Yes, I know the old nationalised system was crap with a 6 week wait to rent a phone. Most people don't.
People cost it in personal terms. They don't think "100bn to buy BT" or "crikey, this will tank my pension", they think "well, it's only thirty quid a month Corbyn is promising us all. Surely the economy can afford that." The figure seems small even when it's actually big.
Finally, it's a simple policy and - on the surface - hard to disagree with. "Free internet!" - who doesn't want that. It makes Corbyn look like Santa while Boris is the grinch.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
Yes they are. The 3 polls conducted exclusively since the BXP stood down in over half of GB seats average Con 41.7, Lab 29.3, LD 15.3, Green 3, BXP 5.3. Con lead 12.3. And one of those pollsters is ComRes until recently the pollster least favourable to Con.
You would expect an increased Tory lead over Labour in Tory seats following the BXP standing down in those seats. Labour wasn't going to win any of those Tory seats anyway so it has no effect on the number of Labour seats.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
What's the cost?
Nobody gives a fuck what anything costs. See also Brexit, Trident, the ludicrous new LR Defender, etc.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
There is a possibility that must be kept at the forefront of ones mind when analysing situations like this: Nigel Farage doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
Yes they are. The 3 polls conducted exclusively since the BXP stood down in over half of GB seats average Con 41.7, Lab 29.3, LD 15.3, Green 3, BXP 5.3. Con lead 12.3. And one of those pollsters is ComRes until recently the pollster least favourable to Con.
You would expect an increased Tory lead over Labour in Tory seats following the BXP standing down in those seats. Labour wasn't going to win any of those Tory seats anyway so it has no effect on the number of Labour seats.
A "Remain Alliance" has Labour doing nothing to take down existing Tory seats, relying entirely on the LibDems and SNP to do the job for them.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
But BT is just one player, and not, in consumer terms, the biggest one. We're not just nationalising BT, it's also sky, Virgin, talktalk etc...
The there's the inconvenience of mobile networks. Broadband and mobile data are essentially the same thing, why should they be treated differently. That means buying the UK branches of Vodafone, three and Telefonica.
An interesting note; in Wantage I've just received our 4th Lib Dem leaflet in the space of a fortnight. Haven't heard at all from the Conservatives or Labour. I know Wantage is a Lib Dem uber long shot but they're really trying
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
There is a possibility that must be kept at the forefront of ones mind when analysing situations like this: Nigel Farage doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.
Or it was a 2017 Tory seat so got a free pass, despite the by-election loss?
But from a betting perspective (seat and LibDem total seats) it does now make it look much, much easier for the Tories to take it back on the 12th.
The problem with Labour's crackpot internet policy isn't just that it's crackpot, it's the scattergun issue. It's the point I was trying to address in my header in the question I'd ask Corbyn. What are Labour's priorities? If you think back to, say, 1997, Labour had a really clear answer on that: to invest more in health and education. Or Cameron in 2010: Fix the public finances. That is the way to win elections. Of course you have to have a broad policy offering as well - voters want to know that you're not going to completely neglect everything else - but you still need a central theme of what your main priorities are.
The current Labour daily blizzard of tens or hundreds of billions being spaffed at every real and imagined problem is simply going to confuse voters in the end. To prioritise everything is to prioritise nothing.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
An interesting note; in Wantage I've just received our 4th Lib Dem leaflet in the space of a fortnight. Haven't heard at all from the Conservatives or Labour. I know Wantage is a Lib Dem uber long shot but they're really trying
They're way out in front on the waste paper front for me - the targeting appears to have gone wrong.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
But BT is just one player, and not, in consumer terms, the biggest one. We're not just nationalising BT, it's also sky, Virgin, talktalk etc...
The there's the inconvenience of mobile networks. Broadband and mobile data are essentially the same thing, why should they be treated differently. That means buying the UK branches of Vodafone, three and Telefonica.
I am not advocating it, just showing that not only is it feasible, if its well done it can be a growing asset to a country.
The main reason I would be against it are lack of confidence in our politicians, civil service (and voting public*) to manage and support such a company, not because it is inherently bad.
* Voting public as implementing it in one election then overturning it 5 years later is clearly chaotic and inefficient but probably quite likely to happen to us at some point. Then we wonder why countries with longer term horizons like Norway, Germany, Japan or South Korea do better than us and search for false reasons.
Labour seem to have dealt a blow to the Brexit election? Different issues are dominating…..
Not on the doorsteps....
You have to be careful about how you interpret the things that people say on the doorstep. Sometimes they tell you what they think you want to hear! Also, todays news cycle will not have been taken on board yet and regurgitated by people. If I were still a Tory I would be worried! If Brexit is obscured by Labour, you are going to have trouble IMO. Maybe you will be ok in the seat you are working but I can see serious problems further North where the Tories are trying to overturn Labour strongholds. Big spending Government is a novelty to many. 1979 and its problems is 40 years ago! Unless you are into politics or a historian anyone under 50 will not have experienced or understand the ratchet effect of Socialism.
I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
What's the cost?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!
Tens of thousands of job losses is in Labour's favour?
Yes! The reason people dont like nationalisation is government inefficiency. MaxPB is suggesting the government would be far more efficient than private businesses are.
If it cuts 20,000 inefficent jobs out of play that is an efficiency saving of £1-2bn a year. A good reason to implement their plan.
And the extra money people will have in their pockets because they're not buying broadband will stimulate the economy and create jobs :-)
Tories in a hole much?
I assume this will have to be paid through taxation instead.
Yes, of course, or borrowing. I was just being provocative. But if the Tories say nationalisation costs jobs and at the same time the private sector is more efficient they are going to lose some of the more rational middle class swing voters. Also the argument that "I remember when 30-40 years ago it took six weeks for the state sector to connect a landline" is beyond ridiculous as a counter to the Labour proposal.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
But BT is just one player, and not, in consumer terms, the biggest one. We're not just nationalising BT, it's also sky, Virgin, talktalk etc...
The there's the inconvenience of mobile networks. Broadband and mobile data are essentially the same thing, why should they be treated differently. That means buying the UK branches of Vodafone, three and Telefonica.
I am not advocating it, just showing that not only is it feasible, if its well done it can be a growing asset to a country.
The main reason I would be against it are lack of confidence in our politicians, civil service (and voting public*) to manage and support such a company, not because it is inherently bad.
* Voting public as implementing it in one election then overturning it 5 years later is clearly chaotic and inefficient but probably quite likely to happen to us at some point. Then we wonder why countries with longer term horizons like Norway, Germany, Japan or South Korea do better than us and search for false reasons.
Maybe MaxPB has shares in BT as well as British Airways parent company?
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
I'm not remotely confident - but I do think the polls have moved to the Tories since BP stood down half their candidates, and I would definitely be confident if you offered me a 10% lead over Labour on polling day. There just aren't enough places to waste that many votes to not get a good result out of it.
I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.
If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.
Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.
If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
What's the cost?
There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.
We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, Apparently
According to LAbour. Openreach wage bill is 800 mill per year and total business costs are 2bill per annum.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
Barnesian
Would it be possible for you to do a sensitivity table showing the impact on seat totals of a incremental change in Tory% and Lab % ?
My gut feeling is that your model is pretty close, and that the spreads markets (where you can sell Tory seats at 336 and buy Labour at 208) are quite a bit off. What would the polling need to be using your model for the seats spreads to make sense (recognising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
An interesting note; in Wantage I've just received our 4th Lib Dem leaflet in the space of a fortnight. Haven't heard at all from the Conservatives or Labour. I know Wantage is a Lib Dem uber long shot but they're really trying
South Oxfordshire: the Conservatives are in disarray there, and the Lib Dems + Greens took the council in May. It's part of the Remain alliance and the Greens are pitching in with the Lib Dem ground game. It looks a long shot if you only look at the 2017 results, but it's a possibility.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
Thanks for sharing the detailed work. It is appreciated and helps explains the gap between the opinion polls and betting markets. Of course no one knows who is going to be right on the night and imo it is churlish of posters to be critical of such open and transparent sharing of a model.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
They are more effective at gouging their customers. Isn't the conventional definition of a monopoly based on market share?
Look, the site you linked to shows in telecoms they are a virtual monopoly. It also shows they are not a virtual monopoly in every subsector within telecoms such as providing fixed broadband. Is it really important either way?
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Labour are expecting to cut total cost to less than one third of the current wage bill.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Arguably the BBC should be free, and paid for through extra taxes on netflix and sky. I suspect that's coming tomorrow.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Arguably the BBC should be free, and paid for through extra taxes on netflix and sky. I suspect that's coming tomorrow.
Yuk, why? If I want to watch Netflix, why should I have to pay the BBC to be allowed to do so?
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
They are more effective at gouging their customers. Isn't the conventional definition of a monopoly based on market share?
Look, the site you linked to shows in telecoms they are a virtual monopoly. It also shows they are not a virtual monopoly in every subsector within telecoms such as providing fixed broadband. Is it really important either way?
It clearly doesn't, unless you want to argue that 38.1% share of fixed broadband is a monopoly.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
They are more effective at gouging their customers. Isn't the conventional definition of a monopoly based on market share?
Look, the site you linked to shows in telecoms they are a virtual monopoly. It also shows they are not a virtual monopoly in every subsector within telecoms such as providing fixed broadband. Is it really important either way?
It clearly doesn't, unless you want to argue that 38.1% share of fixed broadband is a monopoly.
If only you were this interested in detail when it came to Boris’s Brexit policy.
If you are right and the state providing broadband would remove the need for tens of thousands of jobs, that is very much in Labours favour!
The Labour party and it's voters are in favour of job cuts? A lot of these will be CWU members as well.
Serious question: are Virgin Media and the other post-BT telecom companies unionised to anything like the extent BT is?
As a general rule in once State monopolies, the former incumbent carries the millstone of intrusive unions, while the "entrepreneurial" incomers get most of their cost advantage from grinding their workers' faces while pretending to be cutting-edge.
An interesting note; in Wantage I've just received our 4th Lib Dem leaflet in the space of a fortnight. Haven't heard at all from the Conservatives or Labour. I know Wantage is a Lib Dem uber long shot but they're really trying
Hi Glyph. I note that you find the LDs really trying. Many of us do.
Its amusing watching tories getting annoyed about the magic money tree when they themselves are shaking it to within an inch of its life.
Hand on heart this has been the most entertaining few days on here in a long time. They're in a froth and three quarters of them aren't even able to articulate why beyond screaching "commie!!!1!" Fucking hilarious.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
They are more effective at gouging their customers. Isn't the conventional definition of a monopoly based on market share?
Look, the site you linked to shows in telecoms they are a virtual monopoly. It also shows they are not a virtual monopoly in every subsector within telecoms such as providing fixed broadband. Is it really important either way?
It clearly doesn't, unless you want to argue that 38.1% share of fixed broadband is a monopoly.
This is reminding me of "Id like an argument please" from Monty Python.
For all those doubting state ownership of telecoms, look at Telenor, it is 54% owned by the Norwegian government. It has a very similar market cap to BT and its value has increased 400%+ over the last twenty years and employs 35000 people. It is a well run state owned telecoms company, the world neednt fall in.
Do they have a monopoly, or are they running in competition with other firms?
In Norway it is a virtual monopoly, there are other firms but minor. They also provide services globally where they compete mostly in Scandinavia and Asia.
They are more effective at gouging their customers. Isn't the conventional definition of a monopoly based on market share?
Look, the site you linked to shows in telecoms they are a virtual monopoly. It also shows they are not a virtual monopoly in every subsector within telecoms such as providing fixed broadband. Is it really important either way?
It clearly doesn't, unless you want to argue that 38.1% share of fixed broadband is a monopoly.
This is reminding me of "Id like an argument please" from Monty Python.
Shall we also look at mobile subscriptions? Same story:
Labour-held Dewsbury is a largish constituency I know well, comprising the town of Dewsbury itself which itself is a somewhat down at heel West Yorkshire former mill town with an exceedingly high first and second generation Asian population. Taking Dewsbury on its own, this would surely be an overwhelmingly safe seat for Labour, but it rates as being a marginal on account of the constituency including a number of prosperous middle class rural villages located between Dewsbury and Huddersfield. Electoral Calculus currently has Labour winning 40.0% of the vote with the Tories comfortably behind on 34.7%. On this basis, Baxter gives Labour a 58% chance of retaining this seat with the Tories on 39%. Based on these numbers, one might expect Labour to be the odds-on favourite with the Tories trailing well behind in the betting but in fact the opposite is the case ... the Tories are 1/2 odds-on favourite with both Betfair Sportsbook and its sister company Paddy Power, with Labour available on offer at 6/4 with both firms. I've filled my boots, although the maximum stake I was allowed was somewhat restricted in each case.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
Yes they are. The 3 polls conducted exclusively since the BXP stood down in over half of GB seats average Con 41.7, Lab 29.3, LD 15.3, Green 3, BXP 5.3. Con lead 12.3. And one of those pollsters is ComRes until recently the pollster least favourable to Con.
You would expect an increased Tory lead over Labour in Tory seats following the BXP standing down in those seats. Labour wasn't going to win any of those Tory seats anyway so it has no effect on the number of Labour seats.
A "Remain Alliance" has Labour doing nothing to take down existing Tory seats, relying entirely on the LibDems and SNP to do the job for them.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Labour are expecting to cut total cost to less than one third of the current wage bill.
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Labour are expecting to cut total cost to less than one third of the current wage bill.
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
Barnesian
Would it be possible for you to do a sensitivity table showing the impact on seat totals of a incremental change in Tory% and Lab % ?
My gut feeling is that your model is pretty close, and that the spreads markets (where you can sell Tory seats at 336 and buy Labour at 208) are quite a bit off. What would the polling need to be using your model for the seats spreads to make sense (recognising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
If I increase the Tory share from 38.6% to 40.6% and reduce the Labour share from 28.1% to 26.1% then the seats are Con 341, Lab 204, LD 32. This is fairly close to the spreads market.
BT’s chief executive, Philip Jansen, told the BBC Labour’s plans were “very, very ambitious ideas” and challenged the party’s figures.
“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking £30bn-£40bn … and if you are giving it away over an eight-year timeframe it is a another £30bn or £40bn. You are not short of £100bn,” he said.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Sorry. I’m normally better than this and I should have known better than use that analogy as would know far more about it than me.
It happens all the time in Physics when things get tricky: -Teacher: Think of light as a wave. - Bright pupil: what is it waving in?
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
The internet is now a vital part of accessing welfare in particular but also education and good health. If the poor cant afford it and the rural communities dont have access to it, then this policy would also aid NHS, welfare and education objectives.
BT’s chief executive, Philip Jansen, told the BBC Labour’s plans were “very, very ambitious ideas” and challenged the party’s figures.
“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking £30bn-£40bn … and if you are giving it away over an eight-year timeframe it is a another £30bn or £40bn. You are not short of £100bn,” he said.
BT’s chief executive, Philip Jansen, told the BBC Labour’s plans were “very, very ambitious ideas” and challenged the party’s figures.
“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking £30bn-£40bn … and if you are giving it away over an eight-year timeframe it is a another £30bn or £40bn. You are not short of £100bn,” he said.
Labour-held Dewsbury is a largish constituency I know well, comprising the town of Dewsbury itself which itself is a somewhat down at heel West Yorkshire former mill town with an exceedingly high first and second generation Asian population. Taking Dewsbury on its own, this would surely be an overwhelmingly safe seat for Labour, but it rates as being a marginal on account of the constituency including a number of prosperous middle class rural villages located between Dewsbury and Huddersfield. Electoral Calculus currently has Labour winning 40.0% of the vote with the Tories comfortably behind on 34.7%. On this basis, Baxter gives Labour a 58% chance of retaining this seat with the Tories on 39%. Based on these numbers, one might expect Labour to be the odds-on favourite with the Tories trailing well behind in the betting but in fact the opposite is the case ... the Tories are 1/2 odds-on favourite with both Betfair Sportsbook and its sister company Paddy Power, with Labour available on offer at 6/4 with both firms. I've filled my boots, although the maximum stake I was allowed was somewhat restricted in each case.
I have Tory and Labour both on 40% in Dewsbury with the Tories just taking it.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Labour are expecting to cut total cost to less than one third of the current wage bill.
The internet is now a vital part of accessing welfare in particular but also education and good health. If the poor cant afford it and the rural communities dont have access to it, then this policy would also aid NHS, welfare and education objectives.
Hmm, it's an awfully roundabout and ludicrously expensive way of subsidising the small number of cases where that point might be valid.
Thanks for an interesting header. I remember seeing several Hogarth's in the last year or so. I know the National gallery have some but that wasn't it. Do you know if this exhibition has been travelling?
Anyway back to dirty politics. So far we've had 20,000 police from the Tories. Free Internet from Labour. Oodles of money for the health service from both Labour and the Tories and No Brexit from the Libs.
First prize No Brexit 2nd prize free internet No 3rd prize.
All cinema and TV should be free. The government will nationalise all British film and tv studios and distribute their output to all for free, while paying those working on them a generous multiple of the minimum wage.
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Isn't that what they did with the Health Service? Seems to have become remarkably popular. I disn't realize our internet provision is slightly worse than Madagascar's
How many productions do you think would happen in the UK if you were paying the technical crew the same wage as the average nurse gets?
The point is you don't. The film business is pretty well nationalised in France and it works well. Look at the BBC. Nationalised and one of our greatest institutions. They also happen to have one of te most professional film making units on the planet considering the relatively limited budgets
Labour are expecting to cut total cost to less than one third of the current wage bill.
TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done! When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
This PB Tory agrees with you. The policy will go down well on doorsteps. I think people like nationalisation a lot more than they like Corbyn himself.
Tories always say how efficient utility companies are but people are still paying large chunks of their Income on Electricity, Gas, Water etc and see companies making profits that are then paid often to shareholders outside the UK.
We might have gone full circle in the UK on Privatisation/Nationalisation on this as how is it good for the long-term health of the economy if consumers are being fleeced for external shareholders? Politically it is not a good thing for the Tories especially if Brexit means people are more nationalistic. I also have to say that many people still have to wait for utility companies maybe not 6 weeks. All is not well....
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
The internet is now a vital part of accessing welfare in particular but also education and good health. If the poor cant afford it and the rural communities dont have access to it, then this policy would also aid NHS, welfare and education objectives.
Yeah, high speed porn for all. That’s the education aspect?
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
£15bn extra borrowing. Rest is funded by tech tax.
The reason why its so important is some countries have it available in 99% of their nation we are sat at 7%. Our Businesses need it we all need it.
Its like saying why provide Electricity its because its an essential for a modern country.
Anyway my point is the Tories need some Policies of their own otherwise its 2017 all over again.
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
It does seem odd that there is so much money being promised in all directions while the long standing problem of social care remains unsolved.
BT’s chief executive, Philip Jansen, told the BBC Labour’s plans were “very, very ambitious ideas” and challenged the party’s figures.
“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking £30bn-£40bn … and if you are giving it away over an eight-year timeframe it is a another £30bn or £40bn. You are not short of £100bn,” he said.
Putting the Seats Con 319 (NC) Lab 224 (NC) LD 34 (NC)
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
Barnesian
Would it be possible for you to do a sensitivity table showing the impact on seat totals of a incremental change in Tory% and Lab % ?
My gut feeling is that your model is pretty close, and that the spreads markets (where you can sell Tory seats at 336 and buy Labour at 208) are quite a bit off. What would the polling need to be using your model for the seats spreads to make sense (recognising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
If I increase the Tory share from 38.6% to 40.6% and reduce the Labour share from 28.1% to 26.1% then the seats are Con 341, Lab 204, LD 32. This is fairly close to the spreads market.
14.5% gives a narrow majority.
I mean really, does this not suggest that you might want to sense check? Your model seems remarkably impervious to votes.
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
This PB Tory agrees with you. The policy will go down well on doorsteps. I think people like nationalisation a lot more than they like Corbyn himself.
Yes indeed. Cast your mind back to the heady days of 2015 when UKIP had got large enough to have a proper party conference. The delegates voted to nationalise the railways. It's no wonder Farage needed to find another vehicle where wouldn't have to listen to the members.
Labour-held Dewsbury is a largish constituency I know well, comprising the town of Dewsbury itself which itself is a somewhat down at heel West Yorkshire former mill town with an exceedingly high first and second generation Asian population. Taking Dewsbury on its own, this would surely be an overwhelmingly safe seat for Labour, but it rates as being a marginal on account of the constituency including a number of prosperous middle class rural villages located between Dewsbury and Huddersfield. Electoral Calculus currently has Labour winning 40.0% of the vote with the Tories comfortably behind on 34.7%. On this basis, Baxter gives Labour a 58% chance of retaining this seat with the Tories on 39%. Based on these numbers, one might expect Labour to be the odds-on favourite with the Tories trailing well behind in the betting but in fact the opposite is the case ... the Tories are 1/2 odds-on favourite with both Betfair Sportsbook and its sister company Paddy Power, with Labour available on offer at 6/4 with both firms. I've filled my boots, although the maximum stake I was allowed was somewhat restricted in each case.
You must have placed a monster bet because PP has moved in to 6/5.
I think the demographics are with you on this constituency, and the BXP may well attract some of the 6000 2015 Kippers who presumably voted tory in 2017. Plus shouty Paula is quite popular.
I consider neighboring Wakefield to be a similarly likely lab hold at similar odds,
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
It's an attractive policy, bigjohn.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
£15bn extra borrowing. Rest is funded by tech tax.
The reason why its so important is some countries have it available in 99% of their nation we are sat at 7%. Our Businesses need it we all need it.
Its like saying why provide Electricity its because its an essential for a modern country.
Anyway my point is the Tories need some Policies of their own otherwise its 2017 all over again.
Why is it so difficult to understand?
Because the first claim is clearly bollocks, so the rest makes no sense either?
Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.
2017: Con lead 2.4%, 317 seats 2015: Con lead 6.5%, 330 seats
You have an extremely bizarre model that a 10.6% lead brings a Hung Parliament and fewer seats than either 2015 or 2017. Why do you think when the Tories are polling up on 2015 and Labour down on 2015 would the Tories be down in seats?
Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
The BXP withdrawal from T to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
Your original post claimed the Tories didn't see Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
Barnesian
Would it be possible for you to do a sensitivity table showing the impact on seat totals of a incremental change in Tory% and Lab % ?
My gut feeling is that your model is pretty close, and that the spreads markets (where you can sell Tory seats at 336 and buy Labour at 208) are quite a bit off. What would the polling need to be using your model for the seats spreads to make sense (recognising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
If I increase the Tory share from 38.6% to 40.6% and reduce the Labour share from 28.1% to 26.1% then the seats are Con 341, Lab 204, LD 32. This is fairly close to the spreads market.
Much appreciated. Have to say that suggests to me that sell Tory seats buy Lab is the way to go at current levels. I wonder whether the market is being driven by people using Baxter. To me there is a stickiness to the Labour vote in their seats which makes going below 200 unlikely absent a complete breakdown in national polling, which doesn't seem to be happening.
£15bn extra borrowing. Rest is funded by tech tax.
The reason why its so important is some countries have it available in 99% of their nation we are sat at 7%. Our Businesses need it we all need it.
Its like saying why provide Electricity its because its an essential for a modern country.
Anyway my point is the Tories need some Policies of their own otherwise its 2017 all over again.
Why is it so difficult to understand?
Is there some magic reason why money which McDonell thinks he can raise from a tech tax can't be spent on the NHS, or adult social care?
As for the Tories, I don't speak for them and I probably won't be voting for them, but they do have a very clear electoral message, so it won't be 2017 all over again. And boy are they going to have plenty of ammunition to attack McDonnell's lunacy.
Labour's free broadband is dominating the national conservation. This is dangerous for Boris - gives the impression that Labour is fizzing with ideas while the Tories are still wringing their hands over a messy Brexit. Smart of Jezza though. He obviously released that his opaque Brexit position was a hindrance, so gets everyone talking about something else. A variation of the dead-cat strategy I think.
No, a dead cat would be a prominent Labour politician saying something like Boris lied to his wife, so why wouldn't he lie to the country about no deal brexit. Dead cats are invariably personal in nature, look at the one about Ed stabbing his brother in the back.
I wouldn't underestimate the effect of this policy.
It's got people talking about something that isn't Brexit. Huge bonus for Corbyn.
It's dominated an entire cycle of news. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. It crowds out whatever the Tories are trying to say.
Most people hate telecoms companies. The average joe can't understand why they have to pay £25 for "landline rental" when they only use their mobile. Most of us have been stung with high connection or disconnection charges. I remember being genuinely shocked at having to pay nigh on a hundred quid to disconnect my service when I moved house. Yes, I know the old nationalised system was crap with a 6 week wait to rent a phone. Most people don't.
People cost it in personal terms. They don't think "100bn to buy BT" or "crikey, this will tank my pension", they think "well, it's only thirty quid a month Corbyn is promising us all. Surely the economy can afford that." The figure seems small even when it's actually big.
Finally, it's a simple policy and - on the surface - hard to disagree with. "Free internet!" - who doesn't want that. It makes Corbyn look like Santa while Boris is the grinch.
It is a rather popular policy. I want my free owl first though.
TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done! When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.
This reminds me of this famous story from the second world war:
'His orderly, a Royal Marine, was shown the sights of Moscow by one of the Intourist guides. “This,” said the Russian, “is the Eden Hotel, formerly Ribbentrop Hotel. Here is Churchill Street, formerly Hitler Street. Here is the Beaverbrook railway station, formerly Goering railway station. Will you have a cigarette, comrade?” The Marine replied, “Thank you, comrade, formerly bastard!”
― Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance: The Second World War, Volume 3
Labour's free broadband is dominating the national conservation. This is dangerous for Boris - gives the impression that Labour is fizzing with ideas while the Tories are still wringing their hands over a messy Brexit. Smart of Jezza though. He obviously released that his opaque Brexit position was a hindrance, so gets everyone talking about something else. A variation of the dead-cat strategy I think.
No, a dead cat would be a prominent Labour politician saying something like Boris lied to his wife, so why wouldn't he lie to the country about no deal brexit. Dead cats are invariably personal in nature, look at the one about Ed stabbing his brother in the back.
I wouldn't underestimate the effect of this policy.
It's got people talking about something that isn't Brexit. Huge bonus for Corbyn.
It's dominated an entire cycle of news. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. It crowds out whatever the Tories are trying to say.
Most people hate telecoms companies. The average joe can't understand why they have to pay £25 for "landline rental" when they only use their mobile. Most of us have been stung with high connection or disconnection charges. I remember being genuinely shocked at having to pay nigh on a hundred quid to disconnect my service when I moved house. Yes, I know the old nationalised system was crap with a 6 week wait to rent a phone. Most people don't.
People cost it in personal terms. They don't think "100bn to buy BT" or "crikey, this will tank my pension", they think "well, it's only thirty quid a month Corbyn is promising us all. Surely the economy can afford that." The figure seems small even when it's actually big.
Finally, it's a simple policy and - on the surface - hard to disagree with. "Free internet!" - who doesn't want that. It makes Corbyn look like Santa while Boris is the grinch.
It is a rather popular policy. I want my free owl first though.
TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done! When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.
Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
Comments
All this will be funded by a tax on the big Hollywood producers.
Not a perfect analogy, but can you see any problems with getting major productions made in the UK under those rules?
Edit: and of course the importance of the internet is many times that of the British Film industry. I wouldn’t be supposed if this policy cost more over ten year than Brexit.
It's got people talking about something that isn't Brexit. Huge bonus for Corbyn.
It's dominated an entire cycle of news. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. It crowds out whatever the Tories are trying to say.
Most people hate telecoms companies. The average joe can't understand why they have to pay £25 for "landline rental" when they only use their mobile. Most of us have been stung with high connection or disconnection charges. I remember being genuinely shocked at having to pay nigh on a hundred quid to disconnect my service when I moved house. Yes, I know the old nationalised system was crap with a 6 week wait to rent a phone. Most people don't.
People cost it in personal terms. They don't think "100bn to buy BT" or "crikey, this will tank my pension", they think "well, it's only thirty quid a month Corbyn is promising us all. Surely the economy can afford that." The figure seems small even when it's actually big.
Finally, it's a simple policy and - on the surface - hard to disagree with. "Free internet!" - who doesn't want that. It makes Corbyn look like Santa while Boris is the grinch.
Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
😲
Slackers!
The there's the inconvenience of mobile networks. Broadband and mobile data are essentially the same thing, why should they be treated differently. That means buying the UK branches of Vodafone, three and Telefonica.
But from a betting perspective (seat and LibDem total seats) it does now make it look much, much easier for the Tories to take it back on the 12th.
The current Labour daily blizzard of tens or hundreds of billions being spaffed at every real and imagined problem is simply going to confuse voters in the end. To prioritise everything is to prioritise nothing.
But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/751737/largest-providers-of-fixed-broadband-in-norway-by-market-share/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/14/bbc-staff-hopping-madat-huawei-promo-video/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1140128&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Loy_Dig_Tri_LiftigniterReg15&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Loy_Dig_Tri_LiftigniterReg1520191115&utm_campaign=DM1140128.
The main reason I would be against it are lack of confidence in our politicians, civil service (and voting public*) to manage and support such a company, not because it is inherently bad.
* Voting public as implementing it in one election then overturning it 5 years later is clearly chaotic and inefficient but probably quite likely to happen to us at some point. Then we wonder why countries with longer term horizons like Norway, Germany, Japan or South Korea do better than us and search for false reasons.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/554464/norway-top-20-telecommunication-companies-by-turnover/
Would it be possible for you to do a sensitivity table showing the impact on seat totals of a incremental change in Tory% and Lab % ?
My gut feeling is that your model is pretty close, and that the spreads markets (where you can sell Tory seats at 336 and buy Labour at 208) are quite a bit off.
What would the polling need to be using your model for the seats spreads to make sense (recognising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
It looks a long shot if you only look at the 2017 results, but it's a possibility.
I’m kicking myself for not responding to the original person who asked if I was OK:
No. But thank you for asking.
However I doubt many would have got the reference and it might have been a bit over dramatic.
And, with that, I must be off.
"is a disaster for Labour"
"its Commie Cable"
"its Labours Dementia Tax"
"Its gonna crash the economy"
"its crackpot Commie stuff"
In reality - Its supported by 62% of voters cant remember Dementia Tax being that popular. Funny lot these PB Tories.
Learned nothing from 2017.
Get some fookin policies of your own
As a general rule in once State monopolies, the former incumbent carries the millstone of intrusive unions, while the "entrepreneurial" incomers get most of their cost advantage from grinding their workers' faces while pretending to be cutting-edge.
Many of us do.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/752669/largest-providers-of-mobile-phone-subscriptions-in-norway-by-market-share/
(Posted in error on previous thread)
***** Betting Post *****
Labour-held Dewsbury is a largish constituency I know well, comprising the town of Dewsbury itself which itself is a somewhat down at heel West Yorkshire former mill town with an exceedingly high first and second generation Asian population. Taking Dewsbury on its own, this would surely be an overwhelmingly safe seat for Labour, but it rates as being a marginal on account of the constituency including a number of prosperous middle class rural villages located between Dewsbury and Huddersfield.
Electoral Calculus currently has Labour winning 40.0% of the vote with the Tories comfortably behind on 34.7%. On this basis, Baxter gives Labour a 58% chance of retaining this seat with the Tories on 39%.
Based on these numbers, one might expect Labour to be the odds-on favourite with the Tories trailing well behind in the betting but in fact the opposite is the case ... the Tories are 1/2 odds-on favourite with both Betfair Sportsbook and its sister company Paddy Power, with Labour available on offer at 6/4 with both firms. I've filled my boots, although the maximum stake I was allowed was somewhat restricted in each case.
The only thing is, if there's a £100bn knocking about, why is it a higher priority to spend it on providing people like me in rural areas with free fibre broadband rather than spending it on the NHS, or welfare, or education?
Noo said:
» show previous quotes
I think he means this by election result is assured, after the transfers. He's probably right.
Forehead is too thick to work that one out.
“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking £30bn-£40bn … and if you are giving it away over an eight-year timeframe it is a another £30bn or £40bn. You are not short of £100bn,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/15/free-broadband-essential-uk-compete-john-mcdonnell-labour-policy-openreach
That's only five times what Labour claim, which sounds about right for a typical Labour initiative.
In any case, the question applies just as well if it's £20bn.
It happens all the time in Physics when things get tricky:
-Teacher: Think of light as a wave.
- Bright pupil: what is it waving in?
In my defence I’m not well...
When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.
We might have gone full circle in the UK on Privatisation/Nationalisation on this as how is it good for the long-term health of the economy if consumers are being fleeced for external shareholders? Politically it is not a good thing for the Tories especially if Brexit means people are more nationalistic. I also have to say that many people still have to wait for utility companies maybe not 6 weeks. All is not well....
The reason why its so important is some countries have it available in 99% of their nation we are sat at 7%. Our Businesses need it we all need it.
Its like saying why provide Electricity its because its an essential for a modern country.
Anyway my point is the Tories need some Policies of their own otherwise its 2017 all over again.
Why is it so difficult to understand?
I mean really, does this not suggest that you might want to sense check? Your model seems remarkably impervious to votes.
I think the demographics are with you on this constituency, and the BXP may well attract some of the 6000 2015 Kippers who presumably voted tory in 2017. Plus shouty Paula is quite popular.
I consider neighboring Wakefield to be a similarly likely lab hold at similar odds,
I wonder whether the market is being driven by people using Baxter. To me there is a stickiness to the Labour vote in their seats which makes going below 200 unlikely absent a complete breakdown in national polling, which doesn't seem to be happening.
As for the Tories, I don't speak for them and I probably won't be voting for them, but they do have a very clear electoral message, so it won't be 2017 all over again. And boy are they going to have plenty of ammunition to attack McDonnell's lunacy.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1195392166115397633?s=19
'His orderly, a Royal Marine, was shown the sights of Moscow by one of the Intourist guides. “This,” said the Russian, “is the Eden Hotel, formerly Ribbentrop Hotel. Here is Churchill Street, formerly Hitler Street. Here is the Beaverbrook railway station, formerly Goering railway station. Will you have a cigarette, comrade?” The Marine replied, “Thank you, comrade, formerly bastard!”
― Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance: The Second World War, Volume 3
Have the Tories announced any policies yet?
Discuss