Now begins to look like Blair scheduled the vote on the day of an anti-war demo precisely to put his rebellious backbenchers in a difficult position. Miss out on a chance to vote away hated, bigoted Tory legislation, or join a march to oppose the hated, war that Blair was pushing.
Nice to have a reminder of what an odious creep Blair was from time to time.
Very unlikely. Voting takes 10 minutes at a time that is precisely laid down in the Order Paper. Plenty of time to vote and also attend an anti-war demo.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
Different kinds of seat, though. Also I expect that the good Tories of Totnes never liked her in the first place, whereas I don't expect that would be true of Grieve or Gauke.
Still, I expect all three to lose by quite a margin. In the case of Grieve that's a great pity. In the case of Gauke it's even worse, he was potentially a great Conservative Chancellor in the making, and the most level-headed and sensible MP you could possibly ask for. I suppose that was his downfall.
This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I believe that Corbyn is an anti-semitic, anti-Western, anti-democratic arsehole but I doubt he is homophobic. Probably having tea with Hamas or someone else in his close circle.
Then again why on earth would he be absent, given the totemic nature and importance of such a vote.
Apparently Iraq war demo was on.
So protesting that was more important than legislating to get rid of Section 28?
Glad our current PM thought getting rid of Section 28 was more important than protesting.
I mean, if he knew it was passing due to gov counting and he was paired, then yes? Also, Corbyn is our current PM? I wish... Cameron was also absent, probably not to protest the most important foreign policy blunder since Suez, but hey ho...
Cameron introduced gay marriage while Corbyn was making friends with people who like to throw gays off tall buildings.
And Cameron was part of the young Tories "Hang Nelson Mandela" campaign whilst Corbyn was active in the anti apartheid movement. Missing a vote =/= voting against a thing.
The last piece I read about that (in the Guardian) said that there was no evidence to support that claim. If you have suddenly found some, the Daily Mirror wants a phone call.
I would say that the difference was that Cameron grew up.
The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.
Or do you think it is not possible to oppose the economic policies of a black leader without mentioning race, migration or anything else without being racist? Did opposing Obama automatically make you racist?
If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
It is the same as Israel. Opposing Israeli control over territories in the West Bank doesn't make you Antisemitic. Vehemently opposing them while having no comment on China and Tibet, Russia and Crimea, Turkey and Cyprus, and so on, however, strongly suggests that your problem is with something about Israel other than the one you are claiming. That might well be that it's full of Jews.
Objecting to Obama's policies doesn't make you a racist. Objecting to Obama policies when you have no problem with functionally identical policies implemented by Bush Jr or Trump, makes you at best a partisan shill who doesn't care about the issues but merely manipulates them for party advantage. At worst, it communicates that you think it's acceptable for white guys to do stuff that it's not OK for black guys to do. Which is, yeah, a bit of a racist position.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
Different kinds of seat, though. Also I expect that the good Tories of Totnes never liked her in the first place, whereas I don't expect that would be true of Grieve or Gauke.
Still, I expect all three to lose by quite a margin. In the case of Grieve that's a great pity. In the case of Gauke it's even worse, he was potentially a great Conservative Chancellor in the making, and the most level-headed and sensible MP you could possibly ask for. I suppose that was his downfall.
There is no place for sensible intelligent people in the modern Conservative Party, or Labour for that matter.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
I know quite a few longstanding members are campaigning for Gauke.
The JCL/Kipper entryists aren’t. But they don’t have much local knowledge/campaigning skills.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sd just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts ot actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corrupf passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an absolute shocker yes, but hardly corrupt. White supremacism is a nonsense, there is zero evidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood. I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
No I'm saying I despise the Clintons and their corruption. Trump I just consider to be your run of the mill, get rich and acrew everyone else, politician like the rest of the US Washington scene but as he promised to lock her up hes my guy until he achieves that. Then I cease to care what happens over there.
No, he just finds her as personally annoying as the rest of us do.
If you don't have to attend and can send someone more junior along why wouldn't you.
Regardless of the time you can spend elesewhere not turning up emphasises how unimportant and insignificant both the event and everyone else on the panel is.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
That was unprecedented
Fair enough but I dont find it particularly worrying. If hed come out and announced russian troops would be based in Alaska then yeah it would have been concerning. I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Indeed but the line that that newer polls have a higher weighting than older polls conflicts with 90% of new polls within the last week being above the tracker. Even if a few weeks ago the Tories were in the 30s the evidence of the past week should indicate they are now in the 40s but that isn't what this tracker shows.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
To (mis)quote Mandy Rice Davies; "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
I've no idea how the land lies in Totnes or Beaconsfield but I really, really wouldn't set any store by what their Conservative Associations say. In general, they are a tiny fraction and of course hugely biased sub-section of the electorate.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sd just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts ot actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corrupf passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an abvidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figure in the 40 years before he stood. I struggle to see where he is any worse than any other US president or politician all of whom get very rich out of being in Washington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
No I'm saying I despise the Clintons and their corruption. Trump I just consider to be your run of the mill, get rich and acrew everyone else, politician like the rest of the US Washington scene but as he promised to lock her up hes my guy until he achieves that. Then I cease to care what happens over there.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
We know that 37 is the odd one out, as they have not yet corrected for Brexit Party standing down in over half the seats. Their next poll will though, they have said - so I would omit that one from the series for now.
On a technical note for the Democrat market, the "big 4" - Boot edge edge, 1/2020th, Bernie Bros & Sleepy Joe are trading at just under 75% of the market. The idea the field combined right now has a 25% chance is way too high I think.
It would be interesting to know how many of those who have been active in the Conservative Association in Beaconsfield (the people who actually do the canvassing etc) are helping Grieve's campaign, and also the same in David Gauke's case. I have no inside info on this, but maybe someone else does.
On a related note, I asked the Totnes Conservative Chairman the other day how many Sarah Wollaston had taken with her. She hasn't, he said. The memberhip has increased since she left.
Certainly those I've been leafletting and door-knocking with for her Conservative successor have an added determination to see the back of her.
A Conservative Constituency PC would not know for certain. He was guessing, probably hoping, definitely blustering. Possible he could be right, possibly not
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
Will that be their frequency weighting? BMG crop us less often than the others.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
It also means that even if the polls don't move much from where they are a week from now Britain Elects will be showing the Tories climbing [even if the polls aren't] as it catches up with where the polls are upto and downweights further the older ones still dragging the Tories down.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
Will that be their frequency weighting? BMG crop us less often than the others.
It should be the frequency of polls within the period of interest, and they are about as frequent as DeltaPoll in the last few weeks, which have shown a bigger Tory lead. They should publish the weights on their website like 538 does.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
Will that be their frequency weighting? BMG crop us less often than the others.
It should be the frequency of polls within the period of interest, and they are about as frequent as DeltaPoll in the last few weeks, which have shown a bigger Tory lead. They should publish the weights on their website like 538 does.
Indeed I clicked on their 'methodology' link to try and see how the numbers were processed and it is completely vague and gives no real methodology.
Ironically considering its taken from British Polling Council polls it does nothing itself to keep up with the spirit of transparency in BPC rules of publishing tables of data to see how it was calculated.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
That was unprecedented
Fair enough but I dont find it particularly worrying. If hed come out and announced russian troops would be based in Alaska then yeah it would have been concerning. I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
I think his possible links with Russia, and why Russia so wanted him to win are far more concerning than the Clintons' supposed corruption. Neither of these things have been proved, but the former is far more concerning for me than the latter, and, as other posters have said, there are many, if not more, question marks with respect to Trump's business probity than there are of the Clintons.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
That'll shift the tracker, surely?
Barnesian will have a Tory majority of 1 on those figures
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
That'll shift the tracker, surely?
LOL maybe 39.9
Maybe get a majority of 3 in the Barnesian method. Sorry Barnesian
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sd just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts ot actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corrupf passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an abvidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figWashington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
No I'm saying I despise the Clintons and their corruption. Trump I just consider to be your run of the mill, get rich and acrew everyone else, politician like the rest of the US Washington scene but as he promised to lock her up hes my guy until he achieves that. Then I cease to care what happens over there.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
That was unprecedented
Fair enough but I dont find it particularly worrying. If hed come out and announced russian troops would be based in Alaska then yeah it would have been concerning. I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
I think his possible links with Russia, and why Russia so wanted him to win are far more concerning than the Clintons' supposed corruption. Neither of these things have been proved, but the former is far more concerning for me than the latter, and, as other posters have said, there are many, if not more, question marks with respect to Trump's business probity than there are of the Clintons.
My hatred of Hillary perhaps colours my view but she'll be doing bird before him imo. Theres something deeply disturbing about the Clintons for me
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Wow
So many of the poll unskewers I've seen talk about Voting Intention weighting, and how they seem to be ignoring things. Thoughts? It seems notable to me that the weighting on the VI goes from 80% unweighted to 59% weighted...
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call it bribery but it's just politics. There is an argument Trump has a responsibility to request investigation of possible corruption by US citizens overseas too. The ukraine thing is a lot of nothing and none of the witnesses have first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
That was unprecedented
Fair enough but I dont find it particularly worrying. If hed come out and announced russian troops would be based in Alaska then yeah it would have been concerning. I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
I think his possible links with Russia, and why Russia so wanted him to win are far more concerning than the Clintons' supposed corruption. Neither of these things have been proved, but the former is far more concerning for me than the latter, and, as other posters have said, there are many, if not more, question marks with respect to Trump's business probity than there are of the Clintons.
My hatred of Hillary perhaps colours my view but she'll be doing bird before him imo. Theres something deeply disturbing about the Clintons for me
On what evidence? Has she been charged with something?
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.
If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
It is the same as Israel. Opposing Israeli control over territories in the West Bank doesn't make you Antisemitic. Vehemently opposing them while having no comment on China and Tibet, Russia and Crimea, Turkey and Cyprus, and so on, however, strongly suggests that your problem is with something about Israel other than the one you are claiming. That might well be that it's full of Jews.
Objecting to Obama's policies doesn't make you a racist. Objecting to Obama policies when you have no problem with functionally identical policies implemented by Bush Jr or Trump, makes you at best a partisan shill who doesn't care about the issues but merely manipulates them for party advantage. At worst, it communicates that you think it's acceptable for white guys to do stuff that it's not OK for black guys to do. Which is, yeah, a bit of a racist position.
There is a key difference between Russia, China and even Turkey on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Israel purports to be a stable, developed western democracy and it is therefore reasonable to apply the standards of such when examining it's behaviour. No one would suggest the other 3 are democracies in the western sense (whatever Turkey may claim). This does not excuse their behaviour but it does explain it (to some extent). Israel has chosen to remove that excuse.
I offer this only as an explanation since it is clear that Israel does not abide by normal standards of developed democracies. One small example is the statutory discrimination against Arabs attempting to reclaim land or obtain compensation for expropriated land (the various absentees property laws).
Objecting to the ingrained racism of Israeli laws (as many Jewish Israelis do) does not make you antisemitic, just someone who recognises an equivalence between the behaviour of the Israeli and Chinese governments in some respects.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Love a rogue poll, so much more interesting than a plausible one.
Red line falling? That wasn't meant to be in the script!
Wouldn't take that drop too seriously at the moment - it's just because a very good poll dropped out of the polling average. I don't do any fancy weighting, but I could think about including a taper so that polls after a few days have exponentially less weight, rather than immediately to zero.
Indeed Mr Brokenwheel, and the far left doesn't have a great record on gay rights. The company they keep includes Vladimir Putin and a number of Islamist homophobes. Indeed it may have been the latter group that Corbyn was trying to please when he was "washing his hair" at the time of the repeal.
You'll have to point out the far-left people who keep company with Putin. It's been over twenty years since the Russian nomenklatura were even nominally Communist.
And as for this frantic reconning of the right-wing as being homophile, I'd point out that IIRC the ANC and Sinn Fein had lesbian and gay sections as far back as the 1980s. Going "woo,literally some Tories weren't homophobic in the Noughties" isn't as impressive as you think.
Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sd just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
In what sfo apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts ot actual corruption?
Trump ""University" - fraud Public money being spent at Trump hotels etc - corrupf passing laws and regulations which directly help him and his super-rich friends. And massive conflicts of interest. and so on
Apart from that it's not just "I don't like him" he's an actual white supremacist, climate-crisis denier, but if another Republican had won (Ted Cruz anyone?) they would probably have been just as bad. Your point about "due process" is rubbish, the House is investigating, if it goes to trial in the Senate due process will apply.
As for Clinton using a private email server for her government emails, it shows her willingness to think that rules don't apply to her, and reflects badly on her character, but is hardly evidence of corruption (though she may well be corrupt).
All sounds standard fayre for US politics. How rich has Pelosi got out of being in politics? His climate stance is an abvidence for it and it was never associated with him as a very public figWashington. And as long as he hates Hillary the crook I'll back him over her any day of the week.
Can you clarify please?
Are you saying she is a crook and he isn't? Or are you saying he's a bigger and therefore better crook?
On which grounds do you find him preferable?
No I'm saying I despise the Clintons and their corruption. Trump I just consider to be your run of the mill, get rich and acrew everyone else, politician like the rest of the US Washington scene but as he promised to lock her up hes my guy until he achieves that. Then I cease to care what happens over there.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Better poll for the LDs than most of the recent surveys.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
There are two polling companies with their latest poll at 37 - Kantar's latest poll had fieldwork that ended on the 11th.
If their weighting is based on calendar days (rather than number of polls) then it might cover quite a long period that would be more suitable when there are fewer polls*, whereas now there are more frequent polls so you can reasonably take them from a narrower time period, but I could understand why they wouldn't want to change their methodology.
Their weighting could include polls a month or more old. One month ago we had polls such as, 32-24 (Survation).
* For example there were only 10 polls with fieldwork (at least partially) in November 2018. So far in November 2019 we have seen 26. So if you were using a time window of ~month in November 2018 it would seem sensible to reduce that to ~week during the election campaign (this seems the most likely explanation beyond a simple mistake).
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Wow
Yeah. I know "only a single poll" and all that. But that's gotta hurt if you're on Team Red.
I'd generally thought that if they kept the lead to single figures going into the last week, they'd have a chance of stopping a majority. They still may do, of course. But you don't want too many of those before you switch your activists from Telford to Walsall South (ie from offence to defence). And numbers like this would be huge.
(On a related point... the Tory-Lab combined share is creeping back up towards 2017 levels... though maybe not in the same proportions!)
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Love a rogue poll, so much more interesting than a plausible one.
It does seem to be following the pattern as TBP collapse
Personally, I have reservations over the extent of the lead and will continue to urge caution though of course I would be delighted if Boris obtains a majority and ends Corbyn's political career
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
There are two polling companies with their latest poll at 37 - Kantar's latest poll had fieldwork that ended on the 11th.
If their weighting is based on calendar days (rather than number of polls) then it might cover quite a long period that would be more suitable when there are fewer polls*, whereas now there are more frequent polls so you can reasonably take them from a narrower time period, but I could understand why they wouldn't want to change their methodology.
Their weighting could include polls a month or more old. One month ago we had polls such as, 32-24 (Survation).
* For example there were only 10 polls with fieldwork (at least partially) in November 2018. So far in November 2019 we have seen 26. So if you were using a time window of ~month in November 2018 it would seem sensible to reduce that to ~week during the election campaign (this seems the most likely explanation beyond a simple mistake).
Yeah, reducing the window seems sensible. Polls from a month ago are utterly worthless at this point!
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Wow
So many of the poll unskewers I've seen talk about Voting Intention weighting, and how they seem to be ignoring things. Thoughts? It seems notable to me that the weighting on the VI goes from 80% unweighted to 59% weighted...
It's nonsense. People are looking at the weighting by age and misinterpreting it as a forecast of turnout. Online political polling will attract a disproportionate number of people who are young and internet savvy, and highly politically engaged. Turnout is almost certain to be lower overall than among that group, and almost certain to skew older than that group.
Red line falling? That wasn't meant to be in the script!
Wouldn't take that drop too seriously at the moment - it's just because a very good poll dropped out of the polling average. I don't do any fancy weighting, but I could think about including a taper so that polls after a few days have exponentially less weight, rather than immediately to zero.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Love a rogue poll, so much more interesting than a plausible one.
It does seem to be following the pattern as TBP collapse
Personally, I have reservations over the extent of the lead and will continue to urge caution though of course I would be delighted if Boris obtains a majority and ends Corbyn's political career
and Private Francois' media indulgence too hopefully.
Red line falling? That wasn't meant to be in the script!
Wouldn't take that drop too seriously at the moment - it's just because a very good poll dropped out of the polling average. I don't do any fancy weighting, but I could think about including a taper so that polls after a few days have exponentially less weight, rather than immediately to zero.
What does red line falling mean
I think Philip was referring to the average Labour share ticking downwards slightly in the graph.
The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.
If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
It is the same as Israel. Opposing Israeli control over territories in the West Bank doesn't make you Antisemitic. Vehemently opposing them while having no comment on China and Tibet, Russia and Crimea, Turkey and Cyprus, and so on, however, strongly suggests that your problem is with something about Israel other than the one you are claiming. That might well be that it's full of Jews.
Objecting to Obama's policies doesn't make you a racist. Objecting to Obama policies when you have no problem with functionally identical policies implemented by Bush Jr or Trump, makes you at best a partisan shill who doesn't care about the issues but merely manipulates them for party advantage. At worst, it communicates that you think it's acceptable for white guys to do stuff that it's not OK for black guys to do. Which is, yeah, a bit of a racist position.
There is a key difference between Russia, China and even Turkey on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Israel purports to be a stable, developed western democracy and it is therefore reasonable to apply the standards of such when examining it's behaviour. No one would suggest the other 3 are democracies in the western sense (whatever Turkey may claim). This does not excuse their behaviour but it does explain it (to some extent). Israel has chosen to remove that excuse.
I offer this only as an explanation since it is clear that Israel does not abide by normal standards of developed democracies. One small example is the statutory discrimination against Arabs attempting to reclaim land or obtain compensation for expropriated land (the various absentees property laws).
Objecting to the ingrained racism of Israeli laws (as many Jewish Israelis do) does not make you antisemitic, just someone who recognises an equivalence between the behaviour of the Israeli and Chinese governments in some respects.
How much compensation have Sudeten Germans received for land they lost in the 1940s?
Not sure I buy the "because they're more democratic we have to be harsher on them" either. Huge moral hazard.
In reverse order all polls over the last past week have had shares of
42 42 45 37 44 45 41 43 40 42
That's 10 polls in the past week and 9 of the 10 have the Tories over the "average".
Their methodology maybe:
"We weight according to sample size. There is little difference between a reasonable 1,000 person sample size or something larger, but because with a larger sample you can be more confident in viewing representative data in the cross-breaks, we weight them higher. Prolific pollsters are weighted down. Our tracker seeks to measure all pollsters. We weight down pollsters which publish more regularly than others to avoid one pollster saturating results. We weight by publication date. Newly published polls have a higher weighting in our tracker than older polls. We do not yet weight according to a pollster’s record in previous elections."
Still surprising it ends up with the average below 40, there must be virtually no weight in those nine polls with the Tories at or above 40, and a lot of weight in the one with 37.
It also means that even if the polls don't move much from where they are a week from now Britain Elects will be showing the Tories climbing [even if the polls aren't] as it catches up with where the polls are upto and downweights further the older ones still dragging the Tories down.
Yes, this is a general feature of averaging over time. It converts a sudden change in an observed quantity into a gradual change over a longer time period (this may well have happened during the 2017 campaign as well). There are algorithms which attempt to correct for that, but there's no simple way to get rid of it entirely. I don't think there are enough opinion polls conducted for something like changepoint analysis to give significant results unfortunately.
Like the report commissioned by the Democrats from Christopher Steele into Trump/Russia ties? Or Schiff lobbying for military action after taking money from defence contractors? It's the same thing, they call ithave first hand evidence. Very bizarre. The Dems are clearly out to get him, which to me smells of wanting to get their strike in before the hammer hits them (FISA abuse report)
You are such a fan of the Donald!
I dont mind him, I loathe the corrupt Democrats though. Hillary is an out and out crook. I see her foundation just 'lost' 16.8 million dollars
It's a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Not at all concerned about the "behind closed doors" conversations with Vlad?
Not really. I'm sure most governments have behind closed doors conversations most of the time.
That was unprecedented
Fair enough but I dont find it particularly worrying. If hed come out and announced russian troops would be based in Alaska then yeah it would have been concerning. I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
I think his possible links with Russia, and why Russia so wanted him to win are far more concerning than the Clintons' supposed corruption. Neither of these things have been proved, but the former is far more concerning for me than the latter, and, as other posters have said, there are many, if not more, question marks with respect to Trump's business probity than there are of the Clintons.
My hatred of Hillary perhaps colours my view but she'll be doing bird before him imo. Theres something deeply disturbing about the Clintons for me
On what evidence? Has she been charged with something?
Evidence of them being deeply disturbing? Their friends, the people that worked or work for them, the mysteriously deleted emails, Benghazi, the smell of corruption that follows them about, Uranium One, Bill's speaking tour of Russia at the same time. That she will do bird before him? My opinion is Durhams investigation (which is now confirmed to be a criminal investigation) will open the flood gates on the previous administration and that Clinton will get swept up in it. As it stands she of course has no chance of doing time as she is not charged with any crime. Nor, as it stands, is Trump.
Indeed Mr Brokenwheel, and the far left doesn't have a great record on gay rights. The company they keep includes Vladimir Putin and a number of Islamist homophobes. Indeed it may have been the latter group that Corbyn was trying to please when he was "washing his hair" at the time of the repeal.
You'll have to point out the far-left people who keep company with Putin. It's been over twenty years since the Russian nomenklatura were even nominally Communist.
And as for this frantic reconning of the right-wing as being homophile, I'd point out that IIRC the ANC and Sinn Fein had lesbian and gay sections as far back as the 1980s. Going "woo,literally some Tories weren't homophobic in the Noughties" isn't as impressive as you think.
I am not voting Tory, so have no inclination to defend Johnson or the revolting bunch of lightweight far-rights he has on his frontbench. I was attacking Corbyn, the most inept person to ever hold the title LoTO, where the word "Leader" could not be more inaccurate.
The point is that Corbyn, either through his child-like contrarian instincts or because he secretly hates Jews, has put himself in a position to have the question asked whether he is anti-Semetic, and now we discover he did not vote to repeal Section 28, so the question is, is he also a homophobe like so many of the people he seems to identify with or at least is uncritical of (Putin)? Perhaps it is simply because he wishes to suck up to Islamists, or because he is hopeless and forgot to attend.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Wow
So many of the poll unskewers I've seen talk about Voting Intention weighting, and how they seem to be ignoring things. Thoughts? It seems notable to me that the weighting on the VI goes from 80% unweighted to 59% weighted...
It's nonsense. People are looking at the weighting by age and misinterpreting it as a forecast of turnout. Online political polling will attract a disproportionate number of people who are young and internet savvy, and highly politically engaged. Turnout is almost certain to be lower overall than among that group, and almost certain to skew older than that group.
This uninformed outrage literally happens every election. It's tedious.
I thought Putin was pro-Brexit....is the Banks twitter hack the black swan Labour need? Apparently Carole Conspiracy has them.
Indeed he was - one of three international Leaders who spoke out prominently in favor of it at the time. The other two I recall were Le Pen and Trump.
I think Putin would prefer chaos of Jezza even more than Brexit. If people think we will be weak post-Brexit, imagine Corbyn in charge. No military, never fire the nukes, invent Putin around for a chat over tea to trying and get to the bottom of why he would assassinate people on UK soil etc.
Is John Thomas a joke name, like Silius Soddus or Biggus Dickus?
What's funny about Biggus dickus? I have a friend.....
I had a lecturer at uni called Richard Little (who is now Emeritus Professor at Bristol Uni). You can imagine the rest....
Temping for the Manpower Services Commission (that in itself ages the anecdote and me), I do remember a trainee called Aaron Mycock who was enjoyed greatly.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Wow
So many of the poll unskewers I've seen talk about Voting Intention weighting, and how they seem to be ignoring things. Thoughts? It seems notable to me that the weighting on the VI goes from 80% unweighted to 59% weighted...
It's nonsense. People are looking at the weighting by age and misinterpreting it as a forecast of turnout. Online political polling will attract a disproportionate number of people who are young and internet savvy, and highly politically engaged. Turnout is almost certain to be lower overall than among that group, and almost certain to skew older than that group.
This uninformed outrage literally happens every election. It's tedious.
Uninformed outrage is worse than tedious. It's f**king outrageous.
Indeed Mr Brokenwheel, and the far left doesn't have a great record on gay rights. The company they keep includes Vladimir Putin and a number of Islamist homophobes. Indeed it may have been the latter group that Corbyn was trying to please when he was "washing his hair" at the time of the repeal.
You'll have to point out the far-left people who keep company with Putin. It's been over twenty years since the Russian nomenklatura were even nominally Communist.
And as for this frantic reconning of the right-wing as being homophile, I'd point out that IIRC the ANC and Sinn Fein had lesbian and gay sections as far back as the 1980s. Going "woo,literally some Tories weren't homophobic in the Noughties" isn't as impressive as you think.
I am not voting Tory, so have no inclination to defend Johnson or the revolting bunch of lightweight far-rights he has on his frontbench. I was attacking Corbyn, the most inept person to ever hold the title LoTO, where the word "Leader" could not be more inaccurate.
The point is that Corbyn, either through his child-like contrarian instincts or because he secretly hates Jews, has put himself in a position to have the question asked whether he is anti-Semetic, and now we discover he did not vote to repeal Section 28, so the question is, is he also a homophobe like so many of the people he seems to identify with or at least is uncritical of (Putin)? Perhaps it is simply because he wishes to suck up to Islamists, or because he is hopeless and forgot to attend.
He's selective in his just causes and you're right, there is something rather child-like, or adolescent about that. I haven't bothered to check but I bet he didn't have much to say about Robert Mugabe, for example.
You can excuse fashionable sympathies in a young man, but in a LotO of 70+ years? It's disappointing.
Work is getting in the way of PB again which is annoying but does anyone seriously believe that Grieve has a chance? Personally I think he has about as much chance as Labour, about 50/1. 5/2 is a ridiculous price.
Mr Wooliedyed: He is being investigated though. Statistically therefore, The Pussy Grabber In Chief has a greater chance of conviction, even if it is low.
I thought the story went something along the likes of they claimed that some bloke Bob turned up for guard shift, never seen before, never seen again on the night of his death?
Red line falling? That wasn't meant to be in the script!
Wouldn't take that drop too seriously at the moment - it's just because a very good poll dropped out of the polling average. I don't do any fancy weighting, but I could think about including a taper so that polls after a few days have exponentially less weight, rather than immediately to zero.
What does red line falling mean
I think Philip was referring to the average Labour share ticking downwards slightly in the graph.
While the line-up for tonight's ITV debate is crystal clear, the cast list for the BBC's seven-way podium debate on 29 November is still in a state of flux.
The event was always going to be leaders or "leading party figures" so Boris Johnson could attend himself or choose someone else instead. According to the FT, the Conservative Party may field Rishi Sunak, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as their representative.
So is Boris just going to do tonight and then is that it? Are there only two debates schedule this time around? What about those one-on-one interviews followed by audience question shows we had in 2015?
It'll be interesting to see the overlap between people who revel in this hacking and those that got so worked up about the news of the world hacking phones.
I thought Putin was pro-Brexit....is the Banks twitter hack the black swan Labour need? Apparently Carole Conspiracy has them.
Indeed he was - one of three international Leaders who spoke out prominently in favor of it at the time. The other two I recall were Le Pen and Trump.
I think Putin would prefer chaos of Jezza even more than Brexit. If people think we will be weak post-Brexit, imagine Corbyn in charge. No military, never fire the nukes, invent Putin around for a chat over tea to trying and get to the bottom of why he would assassinate people on UK soil etc.
Ideally, he'd like Brexit and Jezza, but even Putin might struggle to achieve that.
I thought the story went something along the likes of they claimed that some bloke Bob turned up for guard shift, never seen before, never seen again on the night of his death?
I thought Putin was pro-Brexit....is the Banks twitter hack the black swan Labour need? Apparently Carole Conspiracy has them.
Indeed he was - one of three international Leaders who spoke out prominently in favor of it at the time. The other two I recall were Le Pen and Trump.
I think Putin would prefer chaos of Jezza even more than Brexit. If people think we will be weak post-Brexit, imagine Corbyn in charge. No military, never fire the nukes, invent Putin around for a chat over tea to trying and get to the bottom of why he would assassinate people on UK soil etc.
Which side are the Russians supporting in this election? Up to now, they have been pro-Brexit and pro-Tory (for defence cuts, presumably). Is there any evidence they have switched to Labour?
The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.
Or do you think it is not possible to oppose the economic policies of a black leader without mentioning race, migration or anything else without being racist? Did opposing Obama automatically make you racist?
If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
It is the same as Israel. Opposing Israeli control over territories in the West Bank doesn't make you Antisemitic. Vehemently opposing them while having no comment on China and Tibet, Russia and Crimea, Turkey and Cyprus, and so on, however, strongly suggests that your problem is with something about Israel other than the one you are claiming. That might well be that it's full of Jews.
Objecting to Obama's policies doesn't make you a racist. Objecting to Obama policies when you have no problem with functionally identical policies implemented by Bush Jr or Trump, makes you at best a partisan shill who doesn't care about the issues but merely manipulates them for party advantage. At worst, it communicates that you think it's acceptable for white guys to do stuff that it's not OK for black guys to do. Which is, yeah, a bit of a racist position.
Objecting to Obama getting involved in UK politics while having no problem with Trump doing it is the racist giveaway.
I misquoted as a criminal matter not as murder but 2 guards who were supposed to check on him under arrest and are 'on suicide watch'
OK. Still a conspiracy theory then.
Well the director of prisons (Sawyer) has confirmed the FBI are investigating a possible criminal enterprise in connection and the 2 guards are under arrest and under suicide watch.
I thought the story went something along the likes of they claimed that some bloke Bob turned up for guard shift, never seen before, never seen again on the night of his death?
Bob? I thought his name was Andrew.
Nah, he was eating a pizza somewhere. Got the receipt and everything.
While the line-up for tonight's ITV debate is crystal clear, the cast list for the BBC's seven-way podium debate on 29 November is still in a state of flux.
The event was always going to be leaders or "leading party figures" so Boris Johnson could attend himself or choose someone else instead. According to the FT, the Conservative Party may field Rishi Sunak, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as their representative.
So is Boris just going to do tonight and then is that it? Are there only two debates schedule this time around? What about those one-on-one interviews followed by audience question shows we had in 2015?
Mr Wooliedyed: He is being investigated though. Statistically therefore, The Pussy Grabber In Chief has a greater chance of conviction, even if it is low.
It'll be interesting to see the overlap between people who revel in this hacking and those that got so worked up about the news of the world hacking phones.
Its weird how certain people used to worship everything Assange did, then weren't so keen in him publishing hacked info all of a sudden.
It'll be interesting to see the overlap between people who revel in this hacking and those that got so worked up about the news of the world hacking phones.
There's always been a public interest defence for breaching privacy. Maybe there is something in Banks' private communications to justify a breach of privacy, and perhaps not.
There certainly wasn't in listening to the voicemails on Milly Dowler's phone.
New Kantar poll, 14-18 Nov: 18-pt Tory lead Con 45% +8 Labour 27% ±0 Lib Dem 16% -1 Green 3% ±0 Brexit Party 2% -7 (Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Better poll for the LDs than most of the recent surveys.
Not that it matters much if the Tories have an 18% lead over Labour......
Comments
Still, I expect all three to lose by quite a margin. In the case of Grieve that's a great pity. In the case of Gauke it's even worse, he was potentially a great Conservative Chancellor in the making, and the most level-headed and sensible MP you could possibly ask for. I suppose that was his downfall.
I would say that the difference was that Cameron grew up.
Objecting to Obama's policies doesn't make you a racist. Objecting to Obama policies when you have no problem with functionally identical policies implemented by Bush Jr or Trump, makes you at best a partisan shill who doesn't care about the issues but merely manipulates them for party advantage. At worst, it communicates that you think it's acceptable for white guys to do stuff that it's not OK for black guys to do. Which is, yeah, a bit of a racist position.
Not another politician who doesn't keep promises!
Regardless of the time you can spend elesewhere not turning up emphasises how unimportant and insignificant both the event and everyone else on the panel is.
I find the hatred of him interesting. I mean I have a pathological loathing of the Clintons so I'm not one to talk but its fascinating how polarising he is
The idea the field combined right now has a 25% chance is way too high I think.
Con 45% +8
Labour 27% ±0
Lib Dem 16% -1
Green 3% ±0
Brexit Party 2% -7
(Change from 7-11 Nov; respondents couldn't choose BXP where stood down – but even if they could only 3%) https://t.co/BdsOD5pQON
Ironically considering its taken from British Polling Council polls it does nothing itself to keep up with the spirit of transparency in BPC rules of publishing tables of data to see how it was calculated.
Maybe get a majority of 3 in the Barnesian method. Sorry Barnesian
https://imgur.com/yYxR8b9
Theres something deeply disturbing about the Clintons for me
Edited extra bit: ahem, poll*.
Con 427
Lab 145
Lib 20
Green 1
SNP 36
PC 3
NI 18
Is Speaker classed within the Labour 145?
I offer this only as an explanation since it is clear that Israel does not abide by normal standards of developed democracies. One small example is the statutory discrimination against Arabs attempting to reclaim land or obtain compensation for expropriated land (the various absentees property laws).
Objecting to the ingrained racism of Israeli laws (as many Jewish Israelis do) does not make you antisemitic, just someone who recognises an equivalence between the behaviour of the Israeli and Chinese governments in some respects.
Stirling Moss, Eddie Irvine, Lewis Hamilton, Ayr Town Centre.
https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/group_b.6b9db4dc-d1df-4c9d-b9ab-c9a136a91f1e/uk-general-election-seats-markets
And as for this frantic reconning of the right-wing as being homophile, I'd point out that IIRC the ANC and Sinn Fein had lesbian and gay sections as far back as the 1980s. Going "woo,literally some Tories weren't homophobic in the Noughties" isn't as impressive as you think.
Edited extra bit: I'm so sleepy I missed your attempt at humour. I do apologise.
If their weighting is based on calendar days (rather than number of polls) then it might cover quite a long period that would be more suitable when there are fewer polls*, whereas now there are more frequent polls so you can reasonably take them from a narrower time period, but I could understand why they wouldn't want to change their methodology.
Their weighting could include polls a month or more old. One month ago we had polls such as, 32-24 (Survation).
* For example there were only 10 polls with fieldwork (at least partially) in November 2018. So far in November 2019 we have seen 26. So if you were using a time window of ~month in November 2018 it would seem sensible to reduce that to ~week during the election campaign (this seems the most likely explanation beyond a simple mistake).
I'd generally thought that if they kept the lead to single figures going into the last week, they'd have a chance of stopping a majority. They still may do, of course. But you don't want too many of those before you switch your activists from Telford to Walsall South (ie from offence to defence). And numbers like this would be huge.
(On a related point... the Tory-Lab combined share is creeping back up towards 2017 levels... though maybe not in the same proportions!)
Personally, I have reservations over the extent of the lead and will continue to urge caution though of course I would be delighted if Boris obtains a majority and ends Corbyn's political career
Apparently Carole Conspiracy has them. It sounds like this could well dominant the media coverage now.
Not sure I buy the "because they're more democratic we have to be harsher on them" either. Huge moral hazard.
That she will do bird before him? My opinion is Durhams investigation (which is now confirmed to be a criminal investigation) will open the flood gates on the previous administration and that Clinton will get swept up in it.
As it stands she of course has no chance of doing time as she is not charged with any crime. Nor, as it stands, is Trump.
The point is that Corbyn, either through his child-like contrarian instincts or because he secretly hates Jews, has put himself in a position to have the question asked whether he is anti-Semetic, and now we discover he did not vote to repeal Section 28, so the question is, is he also a homophobe like so many of the people he seems to identify with or at least is uncritical of (Putin)? Perhaps it is simply because he wishes to suck up to Islamists, or because he is hopeless and forgot to attend.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50467321
You can excuse fashionable sympathies in a young man, but in a LotO of 70+ years? It's disappointing.
https://twitter.com/youellog/status/1196770143600365568
Mr. Woolie, I'd be surprised if anything came of it, but we'll see.
The event was always going to be leaders or "leading party figures" so Boris Johnson could attend himself or choose someone else instead. According to the FT, the Conservative Party may field Rishi Sunak, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as their representative.
So is Boris just going to do tonight and then is that it? Are there only two debates schedule this time around? What about those one-on-one interviews followed by audience question shows we had in 2015?
https://twitter.com/JackFox37765880/status/1196793195851657216
Edit: this is apparently fake
There certainly wasn't in listening to the voicemails on Milly Dowler's phone.
"We're not in 2017 any more, Toto...."