Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Throughout the whole of 2019 every time YouGov has asked its B

124»

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,718

    Trees are fantastic things, help against global warming by eating carbon plus in the correct places offer mitigation against floods.

    The only thing wrong with the policy is the lack of ambition 300 or 400 million a year would be better

    Plant indigenous trees and good for wildlife biodiversity too. It should be a no brainer. Fortunately we have a leader with no brains.
  • Foxy said:

    blueblue said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.

    I'm just wondering if after all the madness of 2014 to 2017 whether this election is actually going to be a return to being much more predictable (or boring for us politics geeks ;) )
    Your joking? The Tories under BoJo are making an audacious attempt to convert Labour voters in safe Labour seats to the Tories whilst simultaneously repelling people who voted Tory and Remain in 2016! It will be interesting to see the result of this strategy in just under a months time. It is so cunning even Baldrick would be proud of it! :wink:
    82% of 2017 Tories are still voting Tory, just 2% are voting Labour and 9% voting LD.

    Only 65% of 2017 Labour voters are still voting Labour, 14% are voting LD and 9% are voting Tory

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w3ohbvr6zt/Sky_TheTimes_VI_191112_w.pdf
    Exactly - people who voted Remain and Tory in 2016/2017 are still likely to be well-off, own assets, and despise the far left. Corbyn threatens all of that, and immediately - he'll push quite a few of them back into the fold, ironically more and more if the election gets closer with other demographics.
    Nah, they will vote Lib dem, and millions are, particularly in the former Tory heartlands of Remania. People who don't like Corbyn's wilder ideas have other safe options.
    The more it looks like a huge Tory win, the less likely it is to happen.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
  • eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Poor show from the Tories, Lib Dems PC & SNP:

    https://twitter.com/UKGenElect/status/1195593894710386688?s=20

    In the current climate, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to be a candidate. Way more so for a woman.

    And then there's this:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/john-mcdonnell/news/100398/esther-mcvey-claims-john-mcdonnell
  • moonshine said:

    Gabs3 said:

    The Conservative Party has said it will plant 30 million trees a year by 2025 if it wins the general election - as the Liberal Democrats pledged to plant twice as many trees in the same period.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50440867

    FFS, is this level of thinking of the Tories. Plant some trees. Is that it.

    Reforestation is a great idea.
    What does Francis have against trees? Seems an odd target for expletive laden political anger. I can recommend finding a nice tree to sit under, it’s quite calming.
    Nothing against trees - just the apparent lack of ambition in the Tory proposals so far....
    m.

    The tories? They want to plant a lot of trees.

    Erm.

    That's it.
    Until the manifesto appears......
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,758
    This is Scotland (and the RN) actually getting shafted. The original plan was 13 x T26 built in Scotland. Now since the tory cuts it's 8 x T26 (although only three have been ordered and the chance of getting all 8 is 0%, see T45) and 5 x T31e. The T31e is a simpler and cheaper build that provides less quality and quantity of work for our woad daubed cousins. The MoD just kept deleting weapons and sensors from the T31e until they got it down to the sticker price of 250m/hull.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596

    Foxy said:

    blueblue said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.

    I'm just wondering if after all the madness of 2014 to 2017 whether this election is actually going to be a return to being much more predictable (or boring for us politics geeks ;) )
    Your joking? The Tories under BoJo are making an audacious attempt to convert Labour voters in safe Labour seats to the Tories whilst simultaneously repelling people who voted Tory and Remain in 2016! It will be interesting to see the result of this strategy in just under a months time. It is so cunning even Baldrick would be proud of it! :wink:
    82% of 2017 Tories are still voting Tory, just 2% are voting Labour and 9% voting LD.

    Only 65% of 2017 Labour voters are still voting Labour, 14% are voting LD and 9% are voting Tory

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w3ohbvr6zt/Sky_TheTimes_VI_191112_w.pdf
    Exactly - people who voted Remain and Tory in 2016/2017 are still likely to be well-off, own assets, and despise the far left. Corbyn threatens all of that, and immediately - he'll push quite a few of them back into the fold, ironically more and more if the election gets closer with other demographics.
    Nah, they will vote Lib dem, and millions are, particularly in the former Tory heartlands of Remania. People who don't like Corbyn's wilder ideas have other safe options.
    The more it looks like a huge Tory win, the less likely it is to happen.
    Or the precise opposite.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
    Still reckon that when it comes to election day, "Get Brexit Done" will be the driver of votes. The idea of going into 2020 with the political system still unable to function will make many voters' skin crawl.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    woody662 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    The Conservative Party has said it will plant 30 million trees a year by 2025 if it wins the general election - as the Liberal Democrats pledged to plant twice as many trees in the same period.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50440867

    FFS, is this level of thinking of the Tories. Plant some trees. Is that it.

    Reforestation is a great idea.
    You would think so, wouldn't you? When I was at university, I read an academic paper that explained that the National Forest in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Stafforshire was a really bad idea. I can't remember what the reason was, but I think it was because it was done by the Tories.
    Living in the National Forest, it has helped contribute to the highest economic growth rates in the UK for the districts within it and some of the highest life satisfaction rates according to the ONS. The National Forest was conceived by a Conservative Government of course, would love to have a look at that academic paper.
    One of the things I dislike about election campaigns is the partisan politicisation of issues that transcend such things. I love your post, apart from the attribution of the Conservative Party to the National Forest. Maybe they did, under John Major's regime - someone who loathes everything Boris Johnson stands for (if he stands for anything).

    But the National Forest builds on a long heritage stretching back at least to the Forestry Commission. That was begun in 1919 under a LIBERAL Government, in which Francis Acland, MP, played a prominent part.

    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/killerton/features/back-to-our-roots

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dyke_Acland

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_Commission#History

    The Countryside Act of 1968 is also an important marker in this development, established under a LABOUR Government.

    Just redressing things ;)

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
    Still reckon that when it comes to election day, "Get Brexit Done" will be the driver of votes. The idea of going into 2020 with the political system still unable to function will make many voters' skin crawl.
    It won't. No one cares about Brexit any more and it's a stupid slogan, as Deborah Meaden pointed out yesterday.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Trees are fantastic things, help against global warming by eating carbon plus in the correct places offer mitigation against floods.

    The only thing wrong with the policy is the lack of ambition 300 or 400 million a year would be better

    Billions are the only units of pledges in this election.

    Or trillions.
  • woody662 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    The Conservative Party has said it will plant 30 million trees a year by 2025 if it wins the general election - as the Liberal Democrats pledged to plant twice as many trees in the same period.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50440867

    FFS, is this level of thinking of the Tories. Plant some trees. Is that it.

    Reforestation is a great idea.
    You would think so, wouldn't you? When I was at university, I read an academic paper that explained that the National Forest in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Stafforshire was a really bad idea. I can't remember what the reason was, but I think it was because it was done by the Tories.
    Living in the National Forest, it has helped contribute to the highest economic growth rates in the UK for the districts within it and some of the highest life satisfaction rates according to the ONS. The National Forest was conceived by a Conservative Government of course, would love to have a look at that academic paper.
    One of the things I dislike about election campaigns is the partisan politicisation of issues that transcend such things. I love your post, apart from the attribution of the Conservative Party to the National Forest. Maybe they did, under John Major's regime - someone who loathes everything Boris Johnson stands for (if he stands for anything).

    But the National Forest builds on a long heritage stretching back at least to the Forestry Commission. That was begun in 1919 under a LIBERAL Government, in which Francis Acland, MP, played a prominent part.

    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/killerton/features/back-to-our-roots

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dyke_Acland

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_Commission#History

    The Countryside Act of 1968 is also an important marker in this development, established under a LABOUR Government.

    Just redressing things ;)

    It's election time. If a dog farts, someone will see the party political angle to it.
  • eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
    Still reckon that when it comes to election day, "Get Brexit Done" will be the driver of votes. The idea of going into 2020 with the political system still unable to function will make many voters' skin crawl.
    It won't. No one cares about Brexit any more and it's a stupid slogan, as Deborah Meaden pointed out yesterday.
    Seems to be very effective in the polls. And effective in getting the Brexit party to stand aside in most seats.
  • Poor show from the Tories, Lib Dems PC & SNP:

    https://twitter.com/UKGenElect/status/1195593894710386688?s=20

    In the current climate, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to be a candidate.
    Labour at least has made progress vs 2017 (in percentage terms, if not quality in some cases) adding 13% points to their number of female candidates. Con, LibD & SNP are all flat and Plaid is down slightly. The biggest increase ironically is UKIP, but then twice Fanny Adams is still Fanny Adams.....
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,758

    eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
    Still reckon that when it comes to election day, "Get Brexit Done" will be the driver of votes. The idea of going into 2020 with the political system still unable to function will make many voters' skin crawl.
    It won't. No one cares about Brexit any more and it's a stupid slogan, as Deborah Meaden pointed out yesterday.
    We were assured that Farage's puce faced legions under their #12b6cf coloured banner would march him into Rue de Downing if the 31st October deadline was missed. As it turned out nobody gave a fuck. That's why Boris, if he bothers passing his deal, will almost certainly extended the transition (heavy) period.
  • eristdoof said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.
    You don't remember 1997 then.
    ? 1997 was entirely predictable and totally predicted.

    And it followed the disastrous 92-97 Major Gov't when he had a narrow majority and was held to ransom by the 'bastards' (his word) like John Redwood.
    The only mild shock in 1997 was the scale of the victory not the outcome.

    Still 2 results in play for 2019 - hung or Con maj.
    Still reckon that when it comes to election day, "Get Brexit Done" will be the driver of votes. The idea of going into 2020 with the political system still unable to function will make many voters' skin crawl.
    No one cares about Brexit any more
    That's odd.

    68% rank it as one of their top 3 issues.

    More than any other issue.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/07/which-issues-will-decide-general-election
  • Trees are fantastic things, help against global warming by eating carbon plus in the correct places offer mitigation against floods.

    The only thing wrong with the policy is the lack of ambition 300 or 400 million a year would be better

    Billions are the only units of pledges in this election.

    Or trillions.
    Pfft, these terms are for pencil necked experts, gazillions is where it's at.
  • Foxy said:

    Looks fortunate no fatalities in the Bolton fire last night, but there are questions to be asked about fire safety.

    https://twitter.com/jabberwock951/status/1195492380666998784?s=19

    Heartening that those students were all budding Rees-Moggs.
  • IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    blueblue said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.

    I'm just wondering if after all the madness of 2014 to 2017 whether this election is actually going to be a return to being much more predictable (or boring for us politics geeks ;) )
    Your joking? The Tories under BoJo are making an audacious attempt to convert Labour voters in safe Labour seats to the Tories whilst simultaneously repelling people who voted Tory and Remain in 2016! It will be interesting to see the result of this strategy in just under a months time. It is so cunning even Baldrick would be proud of it! :wink:
    82% of 2017 Tories are still voting Tory, just 2% are voting Labour and 9% voting LD.

    Only 65% of 2017 Labour voters are still voting Labour, 14% are voting LD and 9% are voting Tory

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w3ohbvr6zt/Sky_TheTimes_VI_191112_w.pdf
    Exactly - people who voted Remain and Tory in 2016/2017 are still likely to be well-off, own assets, and despise the far left. Corbyn threatens all of that, and immediately - he'll push quite a few of them back into the fold, ironically more and more if the election gets closer with other demographics.
    Nah, they will vote Lib dem, and millions are, particularly in the former Tory heartlands of Remania. People who don't like Corbyn's wilder ideas have other safe options.
    The more it looks like a huge Tory win, the less likely it is to happen.
    Or the precise opposite.
    2017
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    blueblue said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Andrew said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It's quite possible this is one of those elections where the campaign will make absolutely no difference and it will turn out everyone had made up their mind even before the election was called.

    You're likely right. After all, 2017 was the exception rather than the norm - polls don't tend to move much in a campaign.

    We've had three dramatic election campaigns (2010, 2015 and 2017) with two shock results (2015 and 2017. 2010 ended up pretty much as expected but did so via the Cleggasm) but before that election campaigns and results tended to be much more predictable/dull.

    I'm just wondering if after all the madness of 2014 to 2017 whether this election is actually going to be a return to being much more predictable (or boring for us politics geeks ;) )
    Your joking? The Tories under BoJo are making an audacious attempt to convert Labour voters in safe Labour seats to the Tories whilst simultaneously repelling people who voted Tory and Remain in 2016! It will be interesting to see the result of this strategy in just under a months time. It is so cunning even Baldrick would be proud of it! :wink:
    82% of 2017 Tories are still voting Tory, just 2% are voting Labour and 9% voting LD.

    Only 65% of 2017 Labour voters are still voting Labour, 14% are voting LD and 9% are voting Tory

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w3ohbvr6zt/Sky_TheTimes_VI_191112_w.pdf
    Exactly - people who voted Remain and Tory in 2016/2017 are still likely to be well-off, own assets, and despise the far left. Corbyn threatens all of that, and immediately - he'll push quite a few of them back into the fold, ironically more and more if the election gets closer with other demographics.
    Nah, they will vote Lib dem, and millions are, particularly in the former Tory heartlands of Remania. People who don't like Corbyn's wilder ideas have other safe options.
    The more it looks like a huge Tory win, the less likely it is to happen.
    Or the precise opposite.
    2017
    When Labour had the Big Mo. So far they haven’t achieved even Little Mo.
This discussion has been closed.