That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Bit rich of the Guardian to say all 3 constituency polls are tight. Fair to say even if Finchley isn’t on the money that Luciana Berger is a gonner. Kensington is a real 3 way marginal if Labour have a surge and then Wimbledon looks 50/50 really, though I suppose if Boris was to lose any MP then Hammond would be near the top of the list!
I think at this stage Lib Dem potential England gains from the Tories look like St Albans, Richmond, Guildford, South Cambs, Putney, Lewes, Winchester, Cheltenham. Wokingham, Finchley and Totnes are probably off the table but there are bound to be a few others I’ve overlooked like Hazel Grove or Wells. But primarily they are in the South East and the ceiling looks like 10-12.
Totnes is still very much on the table due to Wollaston's personal vote (regardless of marqueemark's attempts to deny it).
While the word of a Tory canvasser can hardly be taken as gospel even accepting he does actually mention the bad reception being got too, how confident can we be that there is such a Wollaston personal vote?
She did win an open primary.
And people have watched, open-mouthed as she has been in 4 parties since Easter. Her name here evokes much shaking of heads....
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
11% for the LDs would still be moving in the right direction compared to last time, but they deserve better than that.
It would be an unbelievably bad missed opportunity. They simply cannot count on a major party having someone as bad as Corbyn again in the foreseeable future. Labour are about to find the price of self indulgence and the Lib Dems are simply failing to render the bill.
Bit rich of the Guardian to say all 3 constituency polls are tight. Fair to say even if Finchley isn’t on the money that Luciana Berger is a gonner. Kensington is a real 3 way marginal if Labour have a surge and then Wimbledon looks 50/50 really, though I suppose if Boris was to lose any MP then Hammond would be near the top of the list!
I think at this stage Lib Dem potential England gains from the Tories look like St Albans, Richmond, Guildford, South Cambs, Putney, Lewes, Winchester, Cheltenham. Wokingham, Finchley and Totnes are probably off the table but there are bound to be a few others I’ve overlooked like Hazel Grove or Wells. But primarily they are in the South East and the ceiling looks like 10-12.
Totnes is still very much on the table due to Wollaston's personal vote (regardless of marqueemark's attempts to deny it).
While the word of a Tory canvasser can hardly be taken as gospel even accepting he does actually mention the bad reception being got too, how confident can we be that there is such a Wollaston personal vote?
She did win an open primary.
And people have watched, open-mouthed as she has been in 4 parties since Easter. Her name here evokes much shaking of heads....
Didn't she win her open primary as a Better Off Out Eurosceptic?
Who has since become one of the most extreme of Europhiles?
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Sure this isn't accurate at all based on the user's name - but if it is, that's the effect of turnout
He's read the wrong column too. The figures from this poll are 32-20-11.
The don't know's are more likely to be 2017 Labour voters, women and the young - all groups that otherwise favour voting Labour - so if they do make their mind up and vote it could benefit Labour. But they might not vote at all.
I was wrong, Prince Charles becoming King will not be the best thing to happen to the Republican cause, it is this interview with Prince Andrew.
Did he really say that his problem was that he was too honourable ?
Yes, and he said that being friends with a nonce was not something he regretted because of the deals he made from that friendship.
Least he’s honest.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
The grooming of young girls does rather blur the boundaries, often appearing consensual. One problem of prosecuting the Asian sex rings has been convincing young girls to give evidence against their "boyfriends". Indeed a fair few of Epsteins victims seem also to have been his accomplices.
Andrew, and a few others, should have stayed clear though.
Will Corbyn offer to buy Greenland.? What other ludicrous policies will be fothcoming. Moving the HOC to Venezuela? I think we should be told.
Venezuela, no, but I would not be surprised to see in the manifesto a suggestion, or at least a review to look into the possibility, of taking the opportunity of the decant from the Palace of Westminster to permanently settle the parliament outside of London. Plenty of sensible people support that idea for some reason too.
Sure this isn't accurate at all based on the user's name - but if it is, that's the effect of turnout
They don't "spread the don't knows proportionately"! They exclude them.
That's the same effect isn't it. If you have A on 30, B on 20 and 50 don't knows that turns into a headline figure of A 60%, B 40%. Exactly the same as apportioning the Don't Knows in proportion to the declared vote.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
What is the usual sample size for a constituency poll? Why should we be sceptical of it? On the LDs, perhaps they needed a wider sell than simply overturning the result of a referendum. Though you would have thought in this day and age simply appearing not to be bat-shit crazy would be reasonably appealing.
Likely to change mind Tories: 21 Labour: 31 Lib Dem: 27
Possibly vote for party Tories: 20 Labour: 26 Lib Dem: 35
Probably vote for party Tories: 34 Labour: 31 Lib Dems: 22
Definitely vote for party Tories: 53 Labour: 27 Lib Dem: 8
There's your polling gap
Er sorry, can you elaborate?
48% of would be Labour voters are sitting on "don't know", which means they are taken out of the headline voting intention, from my understanding.
>Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those who would not vote, don't know, or refused
Therefore effectively the Labour vote is supressed because YouGov thinks these people won't come out to vote. Or alternatively, the Tory vote is boosted because they have more people voting for them, effectively than actually do in the sample.
They also weight by likelihood to vote, hence those in "Definitely vote" will be worth more than those who are less likely.
Labour has the most voters in the "lower" categories, hence why their vote is so much lower. If these people flip throughout the campaign, the lead will shrink dramatically.
I'm sure somebody here can do some Maths to work out the leads if the Labour votes were factored in.
But:
Unweighted, 563/1670 say they will vote Tory, 346 say they will vote Labour.
So 34% to 21%, so a 13 point lead a opposed to a 17 point lead. We can assume the sample could still be statistically represenative.
It's all about who actually bothers to turnout - and I would assume that's the differences in pollster numbers.
But 39% of 2017 tories are also saying "dont know".
That just doesn't feel right. No way are the Lib Dems doing better with working class voters than middle class voters. OK, I'm a working class Lib Dem myself but, honestly, there aren't that many of us.
Indeed, Yougov's implied shares are more believable, but note the middle class LD vote is probably more swingy.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
What is the usual sample size for a constituency poll? Why should we be sceptical of it? On the LDs, perhaps they needed a wider sell than simply overturning the result of a referendum. Though you would have thought in this day and age simply appearing not to be bat-shit crazy would be reasonably appealing.
It's obviously more difficult to be sure that someone is a resident of a particular constituency as opposed to living somewhere in Britain. I think that's one of the main problems with their potential reliability.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
It is tactical voting from Labour in Tory Remain seats in central London helping the LDs there, nationally though middle class voters clearly switching back to the Tories in panic and fear of Corbyn and McDonnell
BTW, people who are easily triggered should avoid the film Last Christmas due to some Brexit references in it.
From the reviews I've heard it should be avoided because its not a very good film. What did you think?
I have a duty to inform the site that Sky has updated its cinema library to include “Christmas Films”
Die Hard is the #3 film on the list
I know we jokingly grumble about that, but in all honesty I quite like cheesy 'christmas films' of the Hallmark and Netflix variety, and including films set at Christmas messes with my flow while looking for ones to select.
Likely to change mind Tories: 21 Labour: 31 Lib Dem: 27
Possibly vote for party Tories: 20 Labour: 26 Lib Dem: 35
Probably vote for party Tories: 34 Labour: 31 Lib Dems: 22
Definitely vote for party Tories: 53 Labour: 27 Lib Dem: 8
There's your polling gap
Er sorry, can you elaborate?
48% of would be Labour voters are sitting on "don't know", which means they are taken out of the headline voting intention, from my understanding.
>Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those who would not vote, don't know, or refused
Therefore effectively the Labour vote is supressed because YouGov thinks these people won't come out to vote. Or alternatively, the Tory vote is boosted because they have more people voting for them, effectively than actually do in the sample.
They also weight by likelihood to vote, hence those in "Definitely vote" will be worth more than those who are less likely.
Labour has the most voters in the "lower" categories, hence why their vote is so much lower. If these people flip throughout the campaign, the lead will shrink dramatically.
I'm sure somebody here can do some Maths to work out the leads if the Labour votes were factored in.
But:
Unweighted, 563/1670 say they will vote Tory, 346 say they will vote Labour.
So 34% to 21%, so a 13 point lead a opposed to a 17 point lead. We can assume the sample could still be statistically represenative.
It's all about who actually bothers to turnout - and I would assume that's the differences in pollster numbers.
But 39% of 2017 tories are also saying "dont know".
Yes you're right - and it depends where those votes go too. The Tories may well extend their lead further.
I'm just saying, there are a lot of undecided voters, it seems.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Except that the fiasco of Operation Midland has been used to suggest all the allegations were untrue. Tell that to ex Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who has said he was ordered not to arrest Janner nearly 30 years ago when he planned to do so; or DCI Clive Driscoll (he who cracked the Lawrence case) who has published that he was removed from the Islington abuse investigation when he made it known he intended to question Paul Boateng in 1998.
I was wrong, Prince Charles becoming King will not be the best thing to happen to the Republican cause, it is this interview with Prince Andrew.
Did he really say that his problem was that he was too honourable ?
Yes, and he said that being friends with a nonce was not something he regretted because of the deals he made from that friendship.
Least he’s honest.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
"Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend."
Umm. Not a very strong defence line, imho.
I wasn’t trying to defend. I thought it might explain it, that’s all. The money trail is often more interesting and a better guide to why people behave as they do than other more apparently exciting reasons.
People often put themselves in a position where they owe something to another person or feel grateful for help when the reality is that the “help” has been done for an ulterior purpose and then feel unable or unwilling to disengage. That may have happened here. Who knows. But I do wonder why there was no sensible advice around. What the hell were the flunkeys doing?
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
So how many seat does Corbyn have to win to avoid resigning?
I don't think that will be the critical factor. Even a decrease, if the Tories also decrease, would keep him around I suspect. It would be a bad result for him personally, no question, but if a pro-referendum majority is formed then even though the others will not want to let Corbyn be PM can they afford to demand Labour change leader, delaying those efforts while the ticking clock is still on?
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
I do believe in much of human history that was not the case. That a trial had a presumption the accused was guilty [which is why they're being tried] and the main reason for the trial was to determine what the punishment was unless the accused could prove they were innocent.
My understanding of that comes from an episode of Stargate SG1 though and not a history book.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
Perhaps the police were prepared to believe the worst given their past experience of being ordered to drop similar investigations.
Will Corbyn offer to buy Greenland.? What other ludicrous policies will be fothcoming. Moving the HOC to Venezuela? I think we should be told.
Venezuela, no, but I would not be surprised to see in the manifesto a suggestion, or at least a review to look into the possibility, of taking the opportunity of the decant from the Palace of Westminster to permanently settle the parliament outside of London. Plenty of sensible people support that idea for some reason too.
Ooh, yes, that game's always fun. Personally I'd advocate Birmingham, though in my more radical moments I go for Coventry or Stoke. I remember talking to a relatively senior-ish civil servant about this, who was highly aggrieved that she, as a relatively senior-ish civil servant, couldn't afford to buy anything much more than a two-bedroom flat in an ok-ish part of London (while I as a mid-level office drone in Manchester had a house that would have been well out of her reach in London). I pointed out that this problem, amongst many others, could be solved by moving the capital to a cheaper city - i.e. any other city in the country she might choose. She made a face as if she had unwittingly put her hand in a slug.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
What is the usual sample size for a constituency poll? Why should we be sceptical of it? On the LDs, perhaps they needed a wider sell than simply overturning the result of a referendum. Though you would have thought in this day and age simply appearing not to be bat-shit crazy would be reasonably appealing.
The reason to be cautious about the constituency polls is that Lord Ashcroft in 2015 ran a series of them, and if you'd believe them you'd have had the LibDems getting 25 seats, not errr... 8.
I am happy to believe, based on the regional subsamples, and the constituency polls that the LD vote share may end up being reasonably efficiently distributed this time around.
But if Deltapoll is right, and if it is then the ultimate LD vote share number might be as low as 9-13%, then the LDs will be lucky to gain more than half a dozen seats.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
What is the usual sample size for a constituency poll? Why should we be sceptical of it? On the LDs, perhaps they needed a wider sell than simply overturning the result of a referendum. Though you would have thought in this day and age simply appearing not to be bat-shit crazy would be reasonably appealing.
It's obviously more difficult to be sure that someone is a resident of a particular constituency as opposed to living somewhere in Britain. I think that's one of the main problems with their potential reliability.
No the panels are big. YouGov knew my postcode in the poll that I did earlier, and a fair few other demographics. It is not easy to cheat.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
I do believe in much of human history that was not the case. That a trial had a presumption the accused was guilty [which is why they're being tried] and the main reason for the trial was to determine what the punishment was unless the accused could prove they were innocent.
My understanding of that comes from an episode of Stargate SG1 though and not a history book.
Likely to change mind Tories: 21 Labour: 31 Lib Dem: 27
Possibly vote for party Tories: 20 Labour: 26 Lib Dem: 35
Probably vote for party Tories: 34 Labour: 31 Lib Dems: 22
Definitely vote for party Tories: 53 Labour: 27 Lib Dem: 8
There's your polling gap
Er sorry, can you elaborate?
48% of would be Labour voters are sitting on "don't know", which means they are taken out of the headline voting intention, from my understanding.
>Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those who would not vote, don't know, or refused
Therefore effectively the Labour vote is supressed because YouGov thinks these people won't come out to vote. Or alternatively, the Tory vote is boosted because they have more people voting for them, effectively than actually do in the sample.
They also weight by likelihood to vote, hence those in "Definitely vote" will be worth more than those who are less likely.
Labour has the most voters in the "lower" categories, hence why their vote is so much lower. If these people flip throughout the campaign, the lead will shrink dramatically.
I'm sure somebody here can do some Maths to work out the leads if the Labour votes were factored in.
But:
Unweighted, 563/1670 say they will vote Tory, 346 say they will vote Labour.
So 34% to 21%, so a 13 point lead a opposed to a 17 point lead. We can assume the sample could still be statistically represenative.
It's all about who actually bothers to turnout - and I would assume that's the differences in pollster numbers.
But 39% of 2017 tories are also saying "dont know".
Yes you're right - and it depends where those votes go too. The Tories may well extend their lead further.
I'm just saying, there are a lot of undecided voters, it seems.
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
You will need to take a risk either way. If it is 2017 again then even with a biggish lead in most polls the end result might be pretty close, so are you content with that possibility, and its impacts, at least when set agains the understandable fear of a landslide Boris government?
BTW, people who are easily triggered should avoid the film Last Christmas due to some Brexit references in it.
From the reviews I've heard it should be avoided because its not a very good film. What did you think?
I have a duty to inform the site that Sky has updated its cinema library to include “Christmas Films”
Die Hard is the #3 film on the list
I know we jokingly grumble about that, but in all honesty I quite like cheesy 'christmas films' of the Hallmark and Netflix variety, and including films set at Christmas messes with my flow while looking for ones to select.
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
Really? Presumably 'the opposition' however that is constituted - gets as much time at PMQs etc? So in terms of the HoC as long as there is an opposition there will be scrutiny? May not be the case, I suppose, in committees etc.
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
I understand that concern, but relative to the Far Left Project surviving it's definitely the lesser of two evils.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
Perhaps the police were prepared to believe the worst given their past experience of being ordered to drop similar investigations.
The reports don't seem to indicate that was their fear or motivation, rather that they genuinely felt that believing and supporting victims (before it is even checked they are victims) is more important than due process.
It's awful that people got away with serious crimes, but you cannot turn things on their head and treat things as true before they are even investigated, that's not an acceptable or proportionate response to past failings. Potentially true, and needing to be looked into, sure.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Except that the fiasco of Operation Midland has been used to suggest all the allegations were untrue. Tell that to ex Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who has said he was ordered not to arrest Janner nearly 30 years ago when he planned to do so; or DCI Clive Driscoll (he who cracked the Lawrence case) who has published that he was removed from the Islington abuse investigation when he made it known he intended to question Paul Boateng in 1998.
An arrest or someone be questioned do not mean people are guility or that allegations are true. Lots of innocent people are arrested and questioned, it happens every day.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
Well there are 630 odd constituencies. So being 25% up in 10 London boroughs (or even 30 of them) doesn't move the needle more than a percent or so in the rest of the country.
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's possible to imagine a scenario there where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
It is tactical voting from Labour in Tory Remain seats in central London helping the LDs there, nationally though middle class voters clearly switching back to the Tories in panic and fear of Corbyn and McDonnell
I have a theory that some wealthy constituencies that voted for Corbyn in 2017, like Warwick & Leamington and Enfield Southgate, could swing rather heavily back to the Conservatives this time, because they don't actually want their middle-class capitalist-based lifestyle to be threatened. It was okay when it was just a pose, so to speak. In 2017 they voted Labour because they thought he couldn't possibly win.
I was wrong, Prince Charles becoming King will not be the best thing to happen to the Republican cause, it is this interview with Prince Andrew.
Did he really say that his problem was that he was too honourable ?
Yes, and he said that being friends with a nonce was not something he regretted because of the deals he made from that friendship.
Least he’s honest.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
"Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend."
Umm. Not a very strong defence line, imho.
I wasn’t trying to defend. I thought it might explain it, that’s all. The money trail is often more interesting and a better guide to why people behave as they do than other more apparently exciting reasons.
People often put themselves in a position where they owe something to another person or feel grateful for help when the reality is that the “help” has been done for an ulterior purpose and then feel unable or unwilling to disengage. That may have happened here. Who knows. But I do wonder why there was no sensible advice around. What the hell were the flunkeys doing?
And my point was that you appeared to implicate Andrew in a web of financial obligations and, therefore, loyalty has little to do with it.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
I do believe in much of human history that was not the case. That a trial had a presumption the accused was guilty [which is why they're being tried] and the main reason for the trial was to determine what the punishment was unless the accused could prove they were innocent.
My understanding of that comes from an episode of Stargate SG1 though and not a history book.
Literally watching SG 1 right now....
Rewatched the whole lot earlier this year. After some rocky earlier episodes, it still holds up very well I think.
And I would believe them ....... with the one exception of....Boris. As we all know he would vote against his own deal if he thought there was anything in it for him.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
It is tactical voting from Labour in Tory Remain seats in central London helping the LDs there, nationally though middle class voters clearly switching back to the Tories in panic and fear of Corbyn and McDonnell
I have a theory that some wealthy constituencies that voted for Corbyn in 2017, like Warwick & Leamington and Enfield Southgate, could swing rather heavily back to the Conservatives this time, because they don't actually want their middle-class capitalist-based lifestyle to be threatened. It was okay when it was just a pose, so to speak. In 2017 they voted Labour because they thought he couldn't possibly win.
Yes I agree, 2017 was a pro Remain vote there, 2019 may be a stop Corbyn vote
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
Really? Presumably 'the opposition' however that is constituted - gets as much time at PMQs etc? So in terms of the HoC as long as there is an opposition there will be scrutiny? May not be the case, I suppose, in committees etc.
The government doesn't feel under pressure in votes and debates because it knows it can afford to have 50 rebels and still win easily.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
Well there are 630 odd constituencies. So being 25% up in 10 London boroughs (or even 30 of them) doesn't move the needle more than a fraction of a percent in most of them.
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's quite possible to imagine a scenario where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
They did amazingly well in Scotland in terms of seats the last time standing their total vote which was deep into embarrassment territory for a supposedly national party. Its possible that they can repeat this trick but I have trouble reconciling this with a general swing from Labour to Lib Dem on the back of the revoke policy.
Likely to change mind Tories: 21 Labour: 31 Lib Dem: 27
Possibly vote for party Tories: 20 Labour: 26 Lib Dem: 35
Probably vote for party Tories: 34 Labour: 31 Lib Dems: 22
Definitely vote for party Tories: 53 Labour: 27 Lib Dem: 8
There's your polling gap
Er sorry, can you elaborate?
48% of would be Labour voters are sitting on "don't know", which means they are taken out of the headline voting intention, from my understanding.
>Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those who would not vote, don't know, or refused
Therefore effectively the Labour vote is supressed because YouGov thinks these people won't come out to vote. Or alternatively, the Tory vote is boosted because they have more people voting for them, effectively than actually do in the sample.
They also weight by likelihood to vote, hence those in "Definitely vote" will be worth more than those who are less likely.
Labour has the most voters in the "lower" categories, hence why their vote is so much lower. If these people flip throughout the campaign, the lead will shrink dramatically.
I'm sure somebody here can do some Maths to work out the leads if the Labour votes were factored in.
But:
Unweighted, 563/1670 say they will vote Tory, 346 say they will vote Labour.
So 34% to 21%, so a 13 point lead a opposed to a 17 point lead. We can assume the sample could still be statistically represenative.
It's all about who actually bothers to turnout - and I would assume that's the differences in pollster numbers.
But 39% of 2017 tories are also saying "dont know".
It's a different type of "don't know". It's not the "I don't know who I will vote for" who are excluded from the headline figures. It's a "I don't know how certain I am to vote for the party I've said I will vote for" who are all included in the headline figures.
BTW, people who are easily triggered should avoid the film Last Christmas due to some Brexit references in it.
From the reviews I've heard it should be avoided because its not a very good film. What did you think?
I have a duty to inform the site that Sky has updated its cinema library to include “Christmas Films”
Die Hard is the #3 film on the list
I know we jokingly grumble about that, but in all honesty I quite like cheesy 'christmas films' of the Hallmark and Netflix variety, and including films set at Christmas messes with my flow while looking for ones to select.
Die Hard is just Home Alone for adults.
Do you deny Home Alone is a Christmas movie?
The holiday is a bit more relevant to the plot, but not really - it's just my personal definition, as to me christmas movie is a bit like pixar movie or marvel movie, in that it's about the formula making it what it is not specific content, I know that's a personal distinction of mine, I cannot actually say Home Alone cannot be counted officially.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Except that the fiasco of Operation Midland has been used to suggest all the allegations were untrue. Tell that to ex Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who has said he was ordered not to arrest Janner nearly 30 years ago when he planned to do so; or DCI Clive Driscoll (he who cracked the Lawrence case) who has published that he was removed from the Islington abuse investigation when he made it known he intended to question Paul Boateng in 1998.
An arrest or someone be questioned do not mean people are guility or that allegations are true. Lots of innocent people are arrested and questioned, it happens every day.
I agree. But in the Janner case Sir Richard Henriques (a very experienced judge) reviewed the evidence on behalf of the government circa 3 years ago and concluded he should have been charged at the time (and that other opportunities were missed).
I do not know who is guilty or innocent, but I do know that when politicians interfere in operational police matters to prevent the arrest or questioning of their buddies, there is something rotten in the system. The focus of the current inquiry should prioritise identifying those who gave the orders to stop investigations.
Without getting too overexcited*, we have discussed in the past the position of equilibrium - Palmer's paradox, I believe - whereby the further ahead the Conservatives are, the more their supporters feel free to peel off and vote for other parties - so there is an upper limit to their potential lead. Is there also a position at which Labour are no longer seen as the best opposition, and those voters who vote Labour as the best non-Tory option peel off to the Lib Dems? Thus, if they were to fall below, say, 25%, there might actually be quite a big shift of voters from Lab to LD?
*Actually getting much too overexcited.
That's true. I certainly won't consider voting Tory if they're heading for a 150 seat majority.
After 2017 we can't and won't know if they are heading for a 150 seat majority until after the votes have been cast.
At least though if they do then the PM would be able to ignore the ERGers and Labour would have every incentive to see the back of the Corbynistas and sort themselves out.
Exactly.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
I don't have a problem with that aspect of it. The problem is a government with a 150 seat majority is going to spend 5 years in office without much serious scrutiny in the House of Commons.
If the Tories get a 40 seat majority and the Corbynistas retain control of the Labour Party, perhaps under Rebecca Long-Bailey or Pidcock, and continue as a Corbynista opposition under a 'one more heave' thinking - is that going to lead to that much more serious scrutiny in the House of Commons?
Realistically whether its a 40 seat or 150 seat majority the government will have a healthy enough majority. What will lead to more serious scrutiny is a more serious opposition and what is going to bring about a more serious opposition?
In 1983 the Tories were close to 50% in some polls but only won 43.5% on the day. That was attributed to some voters not wanting to support a party that was already heading for a huge majority.
I live with 4 separate NHS dentists within a 10 min walk of me.
Scotland is better.
Barnett formula
Barnett only gives us a fraction of money we send to London, fact is the Scottish Government has different priorities to Westminster. Arseholes like you do not pay a penny to help me or anyone in Scotland, instead you leech of of us.
I was wrong, Prince Charles becoming King will not be the best thing to happen to the Republican cause, it is this interview with Prince Andrew.
Did he really say that his problem was that he was too honourable ?
Yes, and he said that being friends with a nonce was not something he regretted because of the deals he made from that friendship.
Least he’s honest.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
"Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend."
Umm. Not a very strong defence line, imho.
I wasn’t trying to defend. I thought it might explain it, that’s all. The money trail is often more interesting and a better guide to why people behave as they do than other more apparently exciting reasons.
People often put themselves in a position where they owe something to another person or feel grateful for help when the reality is that the “help” has been done for an ulterior purpose and then feel unable or unwilling to disengage. That may have happened here. Who knows. But I do wonder why there was no sensible advice around. What the hell were the flunkeys doing?
And my point was that you appeared to implicate Andrew in a web of financial obligations and, therefore, loyalty has little to do with it.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
Well said, after Operation Midland everybody should be wary of jumping to conclusions.
Given human nature seems to tend toward the opposite conclusion, and I count myself there, I'm amazed innocent until proven guilty ever became a legal principle in the first place.
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
Perhaps the police were prepared to believe the worst given their past experience of being ordered to drop similar investigations.
The reports don't seem to indicate that was their fear or motivation, rather that they genuinely felt that believing and supporting victims (before it is even checked they are victims) is more important than due process.
It's awful that people got away with serious crimes, but you cannot turn things on their head and treat things as true before they are even investigated, that's not an acceptable or proportionate response to past failings. Potentially true, and needing to be looked into, sure.
I agree. But you cannot investigate if operational police decisions are subject to outside interference. My point is only that this experience would condition police thinking, rightly or wrongly.
I'm going to exclusively reveal that bears shit in woods tomorrow too.
And Labour to follow up with a promise that bears will be provided top of the range defecation facilities so they need not suffer the indignity of shitting in the woods. Initial estimates suggest it will cost 325bn pounds. The Tories say that is ridiculous, and nothing like their own ursine fecal strategy, which will only cost 100bn.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
Well there are 630 odd constituencies. So being 25% up in 10 London boroughs (or even 30 of them) doesn't move the needle more than a percent or so in the rest of the country.
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's possible to imagine a scenario there where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
Lost ten percent of their vote in Scotland, quadrupled their number of seats.
Likely to change mind Tories: 21 Labour: 31 Lib Dem: 27
Possibly vote for party Tories: 20 Labour: 26 Lib Dem: 35
Probably vote for party Tories: 34 Labour: 31 Lib Dems: 22
Definitely vote for party Tories: 53 Labour: 27 Lib Dem: 8
There's your polling gap
Er sorry, can you elaborate?
48% of would be Labour voters are sitting on "don't know", which means they are taken out of the headline voting intention, from my understanding.
>Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding those who would not vote, don't know, or refused
Therefore effectively the Labour vote is supressed because YouGov thinks these people won't come out to vote. Or alternatively, the Tory vote is boosted because they have more people voting for them, effectively than actually do in the sample.
They also weight by likelihood to vote, hence those in "Definitely vote" will be worth more than those who are less likely.
Labour has the most voters in the "lower" categories, hence why their vote is so much lower. If these people flip throughout the campaign, the lead will shrink dramatically.
I'm sure somebody here can do some Maths to work out the leads if the Labour votes were factored in.
But:
Unweighted, 563/1670 say they will vote Tory, 346 say they will vote Labour.
So 34% to 21%, so a 13 point lead a opposed to a 17 point lead. We can assume the sample could still be statistically represenative.
It's all about who actually bothers to turnout - and I would assume that's the differences in pollster numbers.
But 39% of 2017 tories are also saying "dont know".
Yes you're right - and it depends where those votes go too. The Tories may well extend their lead further.
I'm just saying, there are a lot of undecided voters, it seems.
BTW, people who are easily triggered should avoid the film Last Christmas due to some Brexit references in it.
From the reviews I've heard it should be avoided because its not a very good film. What did you think?
I have a duty to inform the site that Sky has updated its cinema library to include “Christmas Films”
Die Hard is the #3 film on the list
I know we jokingly grumble about that, but in all honesty I quite like cheesy 'christmas films' of the Hallmark and Netflix variety, and including films set at Christmas messes with my flow while looking for ones to select.
Die Hard is just Home Alone for adults.
Do you deny Home Alone is a Christmas movie?
The holiday is a bit more relevant to the plot, but not really - it's just my personal definition, as to me christmas movie is a bit like pixar movie or marvel movie, in that it's about the formula making it what it is not specific content, I know that's a personal distinction of mine, I cannot actually say Home Alone cannot be counted officially.
I did once park my rental car on 35th Street, thinking 'this wouldn't be a great place for a sequel'.
That's the one. Hilariously no movement, but interesting to see if their changes will affect that.
I'm struggling to get my head around how the BXP situation will affect seat projections. In simple terms the BXP are standing down in about half the seats but they're pretty much all Tory seats.
So if the BXP vote drops from 8% to 4% and the Tories gain 4% as a result how many extra Tory seats does that win? None, if they're all Tory held anyway.
It reduces the risk of seat losses to the LDs and allows resources to be deployed elsewhere
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
Well there are 630 odd constituencies. So being 25% up in 10 London boroughs (or even 30 of them) doesn't move the needle more than a percent or so in the rest of the country.
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's possible to imagine a scenario there where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
The LD doing well in London, holding or increasing their seats in Scotland and maybe picking up a few CON seats elsewhere in heavy remain areas.
The point is that at this election the national swings don't apply
Be interesting to see if we have black line crossover by this time next week.
It's weird how much the Labour one matches the 2017 trend line though, very creepy
Not that weird. The initial 2017 trend that has been matched so far was nothing strange. Minor parties not really standing in seats get squeezed as people face reality and choose a side.
What was really strange in 2017 hasn't happened yet: 1: Labour squeezing the Tories in the final fortnight. 2: Labour actually scored massively more than its poll line says.
It would be interesting to see what level Tories/Labour would need to be at for a majority of 30 for either the Tories or Labour, assuming other parties remain fixed at their current levels.
UK voters may not always be interested in politics but they aren't fools and they arent gullible.
The polls are just showing what common sense and daily interaction suggest.
That's all you need to know.....
BasicBridge.. How is it if you put the figures into ACOL, or Italian Blue Club?
How about you tell me what "ACOL" and "Italian Blue Club"actually mean?
They are basic bridge bidding methodologies...
I always preferred Blackwood and Sliding Gerber myself
There's an Acol Road in West Hampsted near the Bridge Club, and I've often wondered if Acol was named after it.
Yes, the eponymous bidding convention was devised at the Acol Bridge Club. I once wandered past it as a student. The trouble with wandering anywhere in Hampstead is most of it is uphill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acol#Origins
I was wrong, Prince Charles becoming King will not be the best thing to happen to the Republican cause, it is this interview with Prince Andrew.
Did he really say that his problem was that he was too honourable ?
Yes, and he said that being friends with a nonce was not something he regretted because of the deals he made from that friendship.
Least he’s honest.
Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend.
I have not seen the interview but I would just like to remind people of Lord MacAlpine and Operation Midland. An allegation is just that. Lots of very eminent bright people - certainly brighter that Andrew - were friendly with Epstein and people like Epstein are very good at manipulating those around them and showing different sides of their character to different people depending on what they are trying to achieve.
Still, I’m surprised that there were no Royal advisors, even ones with intelligence or police connections, to tell him to stay well away from such a person, even before his proclivities became known, let alone afterwards.
"Didn’t Epstein pay off Sarah Ferguson’s debts at one time? If true, that would probably explain Andrew’s misjudged loyalty to his friend."
Umm. Not a very strong defence line, imho.
I wasn’t trying to defend. I thought it might explain it, that’s all. The money trail is often more interesting and a better guide to why people behave as they do than other more apparently exciting reasons.
People often put themselves in a position where they owe something to another person or feel grateful for help when the reality is that the “help” has been done for an ulterior purpose and then feel unable or unwilling to disengage. That may have happened here. Who knows. But I do wonder why there was no sensible advice around. What the hell were the flunkeys doing?
And my point was that you appeared to implicate Andrew in a web of financial obligations and, therefore, loyalty has little to do with it.
Anyway....the manifesto policies I would like to see added- -ban cruises (number 1 policy)- they are fucking hideous- seeing a bunch of Tory geriatrics squander the world's precious resources whilst the world is burning is just disgusting - ban golf and F1- I do like playing golf, but it is a shocking waste of resources...F1 (sorry MorrisDancer) is just disgraceful -ban hunting and murdering of sentient mammals by humans -ban humans killing and eating anything that would in normal circumstances run away and like to live -ban the keeping of pet animals- this saddens me, but like golf, an element of self sacrifice is required -ban private cars enough said -people are only allowed three of anything- shoes, coats, pyjamas and the like (OK- ten pairs of undies and socks for lazy people like myself) -ban shops- shocking waste of resources -loads of tree planting
Culturally- we are allowed to keep football, tennis, music, dancing and painting- the rest goes sadly.....
As radical as my manifesto seems now...it is probably just way ahead of it's time....we need to move on a few selfish, Tory inclined generations.....
Thanks - nothing special beyond matplotlib in python!
Out of interest, how does it do the trend? Is it just a basic least squares fit?
Trend is super basic. For each day I just take the simple average of all polls within a ±3.5 day window (so a week in total). I could try something fancier like a gaussian kernel, but thought i'd keep it simple.
That is a horrendous, terrible, awful number for the LDs. They'd been in the 15-17% range for two weeks without moving, and looked like they might manage to avoid being badly squeezed.
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Plus the London constituency polling and the national polling can only be reconciled if there is some truly dreadful polling elsewhere. 25% up in some London Borough but 5% down nationally = a frightening number of lost deposits.
Well there are 630 odd constituencies. So being 25% up in 10 London boroughs (or even 30 of them) doesn't move the needle more than a percent or so in the rest of the country.
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's possible to imagine a scenario there where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
The LD doing well in London, holding or increasing their seats in Scotland and maybe picking up a few CON seats elsewhere in heavy remain areas.
The point is that at this election the national swings don't apply
These opinion polls with growing Conservative leads seem broadly correct to me as a Lib Dem activist living in a Lab/Con marginal. It doesn't feel at all like 2017 out there. I think Labour are in for a thrashing. The poll showing my party on 11% maybe doesn't feel quite right but the broad picture from all of tonight's polls does.
I think too many people from all parties have been scarred for life by 2017.
Do you still think it was a good idea to choose Jo Swinson over someone like Layla Moran or Ed Davey? Jo Swinson doesn't seem to be making much impact on the campaign so far.
She's having a hard time getting noticed. Layla Moran would have been much better at that, she has a much more interesting media personality. Didn't run, sadly.
-ban cruises (number 1 policy)- they are fucking hideous- seeing a bunch of Tory geriatrics squander the world's precious resources whilst the world is burning is just disgusting
How do you see them unless you are also on the cruise?
Be interesting to see if we have black line crossover by this time next week.
It's weird how much the Labour one matches the 2017 trend line though, very creepy
Not that weird. The initial 2017 trend that has been matched so far was nothing strange. Minor parties not really standing in seats get squeezed as people face reality and choose a side.
What was really strange in 2017 hasn't happened yet: 1: Labour squeezing the Tories in the final fortnight. 2: Labour actually scored massively more than its poll line says.
Assumption being the Labour vote is being understated again perhaps?
Comments
There will be some very concerned LD MPs and prospective MPs. (Although the constituency polling, especially in London, might cheer them up somewhat. Although, although, they would be wise not to pay too much attention to constituency polling. Remember 2015.)
Who has since become one of the most extreme of Europhiles?
Though it seems plenty of police don't believe in it.
The worse Labour is beaten, the better.
The don't know's are more likely to be 2017 Labour voters, women and the young - all groups that otherwise favour voting Labour - so if they do make their mind up and vote it could benefit Labour. But they might not vote at all.
Andrew, and a few others, should have stayed clear though.
Die Hard is the #3 film on the list
On the LDs, perhaps they needed a wider sell than simply overturning the result of a referendum. Though you would have thought in this day and age simply appearing not to be bat-shit crazy would be reasonably appealing.
I'm just saying, there are a lot of undecided voters, it seems.
People often put themselves in a position where they owe something to another person or feel grateful for help when the reality is that the “help” has been done for an ulterior purpose and then feel unable or unwilling to disengage. That may have happened here. Who knows. But I do wonder why there was no sensible advice around. What the hell were the flunkeys doing?
My understanding of that comes from an episode of Stargate SG1 though and not a history book.
I remember talking to a relatively senior-ish civil servant about this, who was highly aggrieved that she, as a relatively senior-ish civil servant, couldn't afford to buy anything much more than a two-bedroom flat in an ok-ish part of London (while I as a mid-level office drone in Manchester had a house that would have been well out of her reach in London). I pointed out that this problem, amongst many others, could be solved by moving the capital to a cheaper city - i.e. any other city in the country she might choose. She made a face as if she had unwittingly put her hand in a slug.
I am happy to believe, based on the regional subsamples, and the constituency polls that the LD vote share may end up being reasonably efficiently distributed this time around.
But if Deltapoll is right, and if it is then the ultimate LD vote share number might be as low as 9-13%, then the LDs will be lucky to gain more than half a dozen seats.
I always preferred Blackwood and Sliding Gerber myself
If anyone was wondering the impact of don't know. This assumes all the unknowns go to Labour (they won't).
So it would be hypothetically be a couple of points higher with the don't knows factored in, at the moment.
https://mobile.twitter.com/numanmyname/status/1195832830749745152
And in any case 13% lead ain't half bad!
Do you deny Home Alone is a Christmas movie?
It's awful that people got away with serious crimes, but you cannot turn things on their head and treat things as true before they are even investigated, that's not an acceptable or proportionate response to past failings. Potentially true, and needing to be looked into, sure.
But just imagine if Boris has a blinder and Corbyn a mare?
In Scotland, the LDs have incredibly efficient votes. It's possible to imagine a scenario there where they are fourth in terms of share, but second in seats.
I do not know who is guilty or innocent, but I do know that when politicians interfere in operational police matters to prevent the arrest or questioning of their buddies, there is something rotten in the system. The focus of the current inquiry should prioritise identifying those who gave the orders to stop investigations.
https://imgur.com/W7ghBvl
Realistically whether its a 40 seat or 150 seat majority the government will have a healthy enough majority. What will lead to more serious scrutiny is a more serious opposition and what is going to bring about a more serious opposition?
At any event, Andrew has shown dreadful judgment, at the very minimum.
Amazing stuff.
Be interesting to see if we have black line crossover by this time next week.
If this assumption is based on *all* of the Dont knows going to Labour then Labour are done for.
Can you confirm please? Is making the labour and tory dont know the same or allocating all of the dont knows to labour?
The point is that at this election the national swings don't apply
Philip
Could you have a look at my predictions by constituency and pick out one which you think should be definitely Tory and I have it as something else?
I'll check my calculations and assumptions and share them with you.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
What was really strange in 2017 hasn't happened yet:
1: Labour squeezing the Tories in the final fortnight.
2: Labour actually scored massively more than its poll line says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acol#Origins
-ban cruises (number 1 policy)- they are fucking hideous- seeing a bunch of Tory geriatrics squander the world's precious resources whilst the world is burning is just disgusting
- ban golf and F1- I do like playing golf, but it is a shocking waste of resources...F1 (sorry MorrisDancer) is just disgraceful
-ban hunting and murdering of sentient mammals by humans
-ban humans killing and eating anything that would in normal circumstances run away and like to live
-ban the keeping of pet animals- this saddens me, but like golf, an element of self sacrifice is required
-ban private cars enough said
-people are only allowed three of anything- shoes, coats, pyjamas and the like (OK- ten pairs of undies and socks for lazy people like myself)
-ban shops- shocking waste of resources
-loads of tree planting
Culturally- we are allowed to keep football, tennis, music, dancing and painting- the rest goes sadly.....
As radical as my manifesto seems now...it is probably just way ahead of it's time....we need to move on a few selfish, Tory inclined generations.....
The shy Labour effect?